Displaying 20 results from an estimated 1528 matches for "debatable".
2005 May 26
1
libogg2 branch->trunk (deadline: 5/30)
Ok guys and gals
Monty assigned me as libogg2 maintainer a few weeks ago, with the
provision that I get consensus on API changes from everyone. In order
to facilitate discussion, and to "move on" vs letting this stalemate
hold development at a stand still, I'm setting an initial deadline of
this comming Monday, May 30th.
If nobody has a strong objection why these API changes
2005 May 26
1
libogg2 branch->trunk (deadline: 5/30)
Ok guys and gals
Monty assigned me as libogg2 maintainer a few weeks ago, with the
provision that I get consensus on API changes from everyone. In order
to facilitate discussion, and to "move on" vs letting this stalemate
hold development at a stand still, I'm setting an initial deadline of
this comming Monday, May 30th.
If nobody has a strong objection why these API changes
2005 May 26
1
libogg2 branch->trunk (deadline: 5/30)
Ok guys and gals
Monty assigned me as libogg2 maintainer a few weeks ago, with the
provision that I get consensus on API changes from everyone. In order
to facilitate discussion, and to "move on" vs letting this stalemate
hold development at a stand still, I'm setting an initial deadline of
this comming Monday, May 30th.
If nobody has a strong objection why these API changes
2005 May 26
1
libogg2 branch->trunk (deadline: 5/30)
Ok guys and gals
Monty assigned me as libogg2 maintainer a few weeks ago, with the
provision that I get consensus on API changes from everyone. In order
to facilitate discussion, and to "move on" vs letting this stalemate
hold development at a stand still, I'm setting an initial deadline of
this comming Monday, May 30th.
If nobody has a strong objection why these API changes
2005 May 26
1
libogg2 branch->trunk (deadline: 5/30)
Ok guys and gals
Monty assigned me as libogg2 maintainer a few weeks ago, with the
provision that I get consensus on API changes from everyone. In order
to facilitate discussion, and to "move on" vs letting this stalemate
hold development at a stand still, I'm setting an initial deadline of
this comming Monday, May 30th.
If nobody has a strong objection why these API changes
2005 Mar 05
2
Streaming Council Debate on Software Patents via Cell Phone?
I'm looking for a solution to provide a live stream of the debate on
Sofware Patents in Monday's EU Council of Ministers [1]. Here's what I've in
mind:
* Council --> mobile phone --> software answering machine --> Internet
server
* Council --> mobile phone --> VOIP --> Internet server
Has anyone ever streamed something via a cell phone? How would you
realize
2003 Jul 06
1
Am I the only one who thinks this tagging debate is getting out of hand?
I'm just a causual reader of the vorbis@xiph.org list and lately its
been flooded with this tagging debate(and the what, 5 threads its
spawned?). I think that it is getting way out of hand. I personally
don't have anything against the proposal(though i'm not for it) but
lately I've been getting double the number of messages I usually do and
its really starting to tick me
2014 Jan 12
6
[LLVMdev] RFC: Change coding standard to not indent namespaces ever
Currently there is a mixture of indented namespaces and un-indented
namespaces in both LLVM and Clang. I think this is confusing and it wastes
developer time debating the issue. I'd like to pick one and stick with it
consistently.
Indenting cannot possibly work in many contexts -- file-wide namespaces
just make no sense to indent. So I don't think we should pick "always
indent".
2011 Feb 21
1
R Square Help (this debate again, i know!)
Hello everyone,
I have been using R to do some behavioural economic analysis for my masters
thesis, specifically fitting demand curves using nls.
E.g.
Formula: y ~ c + b * x - a * exp(x)
Parameters:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
c -0.445097 0.080823 -5.507 0.005304 **
b -0.777105 0.059528 -13.054 0.000199 ***
a 0.011908 0.003886 3.064 0.037495 *
---
Signif.
2017 Oct 29
3
Debate: Shall some of Microsoft R Open Code be ported to mainstream R?
Dear R Developers,
First of all, I would like to thank you Jeroen Ooms for taking the binary
Window Builds from Duncan. I firmly believe that the R Community will
benefit a lot from his work.
However, the debate I would like to open is about if some of Microsoft R
Open Code shall be ported from R Open to Mainstream R.
There are some beneficts in R Open such as multithreaded performance:
2003 Feb 18
0
mbox vs maildir debate (was re: subject concerning binc imap, even though my original message never touched on it or maildir)
Tried sending this message with the original topic
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
> Hi, Ian. Cross-posting discussions like this is usually not appreciated
> by those who subscribe to both foras, so I'll limit it to the Dovecot
> list.
Mea culpa.
That was an inadvertent mess-up on my part; I did not see the headers,
usually going by the list's reply-to
2006 Sep 05
15
ferret finds ''tests'' but not ''test''
Hello all,
Quick question (possibly!) - I''ve got a few records indexed and doing a
search for ''test'' reports in no hits even though I know the word ''tests''
exists in the indexed field. Doing a search for ''tests'' produces a
result. I would have thought that ''test'' would match ''tests'' but no such
2017 Oct 29
0
Debate: Shall some of Microsoft R Open Code be ported to mainstream R?
User here: incorporating Intel's MKL, as MRO does, would be a very welcome
addition.
I was an MRO user before and it improved my experience with medium data
immensely.
They did, however, leave behind bugs here and there, especially related to
development with Rcpp, so I switched back to vanilla R.
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017, 9:42 AM Juan Telleria <jtelleriar at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear
2017 Oct 31
0
Debate: Shall some of Microsoft R Open Code be ported to mainstream R?
So as long as I can read, OpenBlas, for Windows, might be a worth
considering option:
http://www.openblas.net
But Intel MKL also seems to be free*:
https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/free-mkl
Thank you,
Juan
El 30/10/2017 6:45 p. m., "Avraham Adler" <avraham.adler at gmail.com>
escribi?:
> [Sent offlist accidentally]
>
> What concerns me first and foremost is
2017 Oct 30
3
Debate: Shall some of Microsoft R Open Code be ported to mainstream R?
[Sent offlist accidentally]
What concerns me first and foremost is that the licensure would have
to be ironclad (including for commercial use like vanilla R now) as
well as ensuring that R remains completely FLOSS. Anything ?added? to
R has to be a no-strings-attached gift to R.
Also, I would think that it would have to play nice with existing
workflows (like OpenBLAS instead of MKL) unless
2017 Oct 30
1
Debate: Shall some of Microsoft R Open Code be ported to mainstream R?
On 29 October 2017 at 22:01, Kenny Bell wrote:
| User here: incorporating Intel's MKL, as MRO does, would be a very welcome
| addition.
|
| I was an MRO user before and it improved my experience with medium data
| immensely.
|
| They did, however, leave behind bugs here and there, especially related to
| development with Rcpp, so I switched back to vanilla R.
With all due respect: You may
2017 Mar 17
2
Pregunta (debate) sobre licencia R
Estimados
Sobre el registros, por estos lados el registro es o no es necesario, depende la persona, en otros términos, supongamos que pinto un cuadro, lo coloco en las redes sociales, hay publicación, pero luego aparece en la tapa de una revista muy cara, en ese caso hay registros que dicen que soy el autor, puedo reclamar, sin embargo estaría complicado que alguien acepte que yo pinte La
2005 Mar 28
1
Asterisk, SER, NAT, STUN and the whole debate
Guys.
Im reading a lot about ser, nat, stun, etc. And I noticed there are a lot of
ways to get around nat but I would like to hear some success stories about
handling nat users with multiple voip phones behind nat.
I have my asterisk box behind but ports are forwarded (5060 5004 10000-20000
for rtp and 4569 for iax2) but still.. I can quite figure out what ser and
stund have to do on this
2013 Jan 10
2
[LLVMdev] Using C++'11 language features in LLVM itself
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Justin Holewinski <
justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org>wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Justin Holewinski
>> <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org>
2012 Nov 28
2
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] !!! 3.2 Release RC2 deadline November 29th
On 28 Nov 2012, at 17:02, Tanya Lattner wrote:
>> 14116 - Inliner incorrectly combines cleanup and catch landing pads
>
> I think this one can be moved out as a release blocker. Too much debate and no action on the bug in over a month.
This bug means that we can't compile at anything over -O1, or we get code that does the wrong thing (e.g. terminate instead of catching an