← Back to context

Comment by mitchellh

1 day ago

What contrast? I stand by what I said there. I just re-read every point and I would say the same thing today and I don't think my blog post contradicts any of that?

A user came along and provided a reliable reproduction for me (last night) that allowed me to find and fix the issue. Simultaneously they found the same thing and produced a similar fix, which also helped validate both our approaches. So, we were able to move forward. I said in the linked comment that I believed the leak existed, just couldn't find it.

It also was fairly limited in impact. As far as Ghostty bugs go, the number of upvotes the bug report had (9) is very small. The "largest" in the title is with regards to the size of the leak in bytes, not the size of the leak in terms of reach.

As extra data to support this, this bug has existed for at least 3 years (since the introduction of this data structure in Ghostty during the private beta). The first time I even heard about it in a way where I can confidently say it was this was maybe 3 or 4 months ago. It was extremely rare. I think the recent rise in popularity of Claude Code in particular was bringing this to the surface more often, but never to the point it rose to a massively reported issue.

6 comments

mitchellh

Reply
1a527dd5  1 day ago

[flagged]

  • mitchellh  1 day ago

    Discussion upvotes, discussion activity, and Discord reorts. I read every discussion and have been doing this project specifically for a few years now. There is a stark difference between a widespread and common bug and something like this.

    Like I said, this bug has existed for 3 years at this point and Ghostty is likely used by hundreds of thousands if not a million+ people daily (we don't have any analytics at all but have some side signals based on terminal reports from 3rd party CLIs). Trust me when I say that when there is a widespread issue, we hear it MUCH more loudly. :)