On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 07:04:41PM -0500, David Steele wrote: > After reviewing the thread I also agree that this should be pushed to > 2018-09, so I have done so. > > I'm very excited by this patch, though. In general I agree with Peter that > a higher rate of false positives is acceptable to save memory. I also don't > see any reason why this can't be tuned with a parameter. Start with a > conservative default and allow the user to adjust as desired.
Not much has happened since last March. The patch has conflicts in regression tests. Thomas, you are registered as a reviewer of this patch. Are you planning to look at it? This is moved to next CF, waiting on author per the rotten bits. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
