Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Revert fisker's memory regression #617

Closed

Conversation

devinrhode2
Copy link
Contributor

I am happy with the git work, but still need to do some manual sanity checking, and probably run test suite

@fisker you are totally welcome to change anything here. For example, "use xo to lint xo was lost as collateral damage, but we can restore that. Likewise I think the "ignores" fix you had in the same commit could also be restored.

Here, I was just trying to do the cleanest possible revert.

This could be considered like a v0.45.1 but since it's also reverting fisker's fixes, it could also be considered like a v0.43.1. It's a mutant. Probably 0.43.1 would make the most sense. (If review goes well, and sindre wants to publish it, of course)

Closes #599 but also re-opens #583

Some old code was using fs-extra, so had to bring back in

Once memory regression is resolved, this can be uninstalled again
@devinrhode2
Copy link
Contributor Author

@fisker in theory, you (or anyone!) could take another stab at your original fixes for #583 like so:

  1. Get these commits locally
  2. Squash all 5 together
  3. Revert the fully-squashed commit
    3.1 Checkout fresh branch off of main
  4. (?) Cherry-pick that revert commit
    Then finally re-revert that revert, undo, and edit away
    (I'm sure you could figure this out of course, just sharing to maybe save you time messing with git)

@devinrhode2
Copy link
Contributor Author

taking the really brain-dead approach and also reverting the "remove fs-extra" commit: #619

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Huge memory usage regression: 580 MB in 0.43 → 6300 MB in 0.44
1 participant