Fix performance regression in clear_modules!
#2685
Conversation
fingolfin
force-pushed
the
mh/fix-gc-regression
branch
from
8e14b75 to
90a8369
Compare
|
LGTM!
We haven't done those in a while, but we can definitely do backports when needed. Side note -- do you think we could add Oscar to be part of our upstream tests? I wouldn't have noticed the performance issues, but it's a big, complex document, so it might reveal a regression sometimes. Documenter.jl/.github/workflows/regression-tests.yml Lines 47 to 56 in 10c41a5 |
(cherry picked from commit 3684e46)
* Remove at-meta, at-setup, at-docs from search index (#2675) Co-authored-by: Morten Piibeleht <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit e20db94) * Fix performance regression in clear_modules! (#2685) (cherry picked from commit 3684e46) * Set version to 1.10.2 --------- Co-authored-by: Mohd Rahban Ghani <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Max Horn <[email protected]>
|
Thank you for the quick release @mortenpi ! We should open an issue on the other performance regression. (I'd do it now but need to run now to get my son to daycare and then get to teaching. I'll try to remember it later.) I see no reason why we couldn't/ shouldn't add Oscar to those tests. |
2 participants
See oscar-system/Oscar.jl#4824 for background.
Unfortunately there is a much worse performance regression on master introduced by PR #2676 (ping @Rahban1). Luckily this one has not yet been in a release of Documenter.
It would be great to have this fix in a release ASAP. Perhaps it would make sense to make a branch for a 1.10.2 release with just this fix but not the other changes, so we have time to properly deal with the other regression (other than reverting the PR in question) ?