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