Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Improve close methods for SingleAsyncWork
close(t::Timer) also works for SingleAsyncWork, so let that method take both. Further, the close hook for SingleAsyncWork needs to remove it from the preservation dict.
- Loading branch information
67ed8d1
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If the handles were being preserved, is this the source of the memory leak in JuliaInterop/ZMQ.jl#76?
67ed8d1
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
67ed8d1
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I believe this is backported, and may justify a prompt 0.3.7 release. Cc: @JuliaBackports @tkelman
67ed8d1
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I just tagged 0.3.7 a few hours ago. We haven't posted the binaries yet, but the git history is there.
67ed8d1
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
0.3.7 hasn't been officially released yet. Is this critical enough for us to retag, rebuild binaries and then release?
On an unrelated note, it amuses me that the three verbs start with 're-' but only two of them imply a repetition of work.
67ed8d1
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Cross-referencing JuliaInterop/ZMQ.jl#76 - I don't like deleting a tag that's been public in the history for ~12 hours, I'd rather just supersede it with a new one and go straight to 0.3.8. A very short march, potentially.
67ed8d1
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No not yet. @Keno should it be?
67ed8d1
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Bump. Again, I don't want to backport this until I get confirmation that it should be backported.
67ed8d1
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think that's necessary, and since packages will probably want to support older 0.3 versions too, it would complicate the version checking.
67ed8d1
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
okay great, thanks Keno