From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-58830-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F16A198005
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:10:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EC86DE068E;
	Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:10:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BBC5E05F1
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:10:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-qa0-f42.google.com (mail-qa0-f42.google.com [209.85.216.42])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	(Authenticated sender: mattst88)
	by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1149F33DB7F
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:10:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id cr7so2693615qab.8
        for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:10:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.49.118.162 with SMTP id kn2mr21737895qeb.65.1361905829356;
 Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:10:29 -0800 (PST)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.49.13.138 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:10:09 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAAr7Pr_ortMPegDfPWcLw8ZLZoDV-HJBB4-Z3e93y=1G0A6O-Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <512CB9B8.9060308@gentoo.org> <CAAr7Pr_ortMPegDfPWcLw8ZLZoDV-HJBB4-Z3e93y=1G0A6O-Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:10:09 -0800
Message-ID: <CAEdQ38F_bD7vTNw3T5WouBCNEeLYo1azFsj7KEBrEnkmCOSqVw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Evaluating a new malloc()
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Archives-Salt: 2b9d4c15-a790-4d68-b915-495b2f5b3295
X-Archives-Hash: c9c7a67780e52df1c209a2be358b1fb7

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
> In terms of 'following Gentoo policy.' We encourage packages to be as
> close to upstream as possible. I cannot fathom why when you basically
> find a performance bug in malloc, you start a thread on the list about
> replacing it; as opposed to filing a bug against glibc or emailing the
> glibc lists and asking them about it.

We may not understand it, but it does completely fit ryao's typical
modus operandi.