search for: exemption

RJS templates are the only template type that are exempt from layout by default. Don''t you think it makes sense to add rxml to the list of exempt extensions? I''d assume most people would be surprised to see their XML embedded in the middle of their (most probably) rhtml layout. http://dev.rubyonrails.org/svn/rails/trunk/actionpack/lib/ action_controller/base.rb:

I looked through the wiki and the archives, but couldn't find an answer to this question. We use a webmail product that uses three dummy mbox dotfiles for storing configuration and temporary info. I'm trying to find a way to have dovecot's indexing ignore all dotfiles, and so far have had no luck (other than, of course, coding it in myself). Does anyone know if this is possible?

...ntributions a CLA signature is still required. I''m also working on making the overall CLA process easier, but that will take a little more time to overhaul. You can see more about our definition of trivial and how to use the process here: http://docs.puppetlabs.com/community/trivial_patch_exemption.html Hopefully, this will make it easier for people to make small contributions to our projects. Again, remember that this is only for trivial contributions. Most contributions will still require a CLA. See the link above for exactly what can / cannot be considered trivial. We will be updating ou...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I'm using Dovecot v2.2 with unix_listener auth-client { } to verify passwords for a different service. However, it looks like that auth_failure_delay effects all connects going through that socket. I mean: connect /var/run/dovecot2.2/auth-client attempt bad auth 2s penalty NO disconnect ==> Note, it's another connection almost

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 8:43 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 1:13 PM, James Y Knight <foom at fuhm.net> wrote: >> Hi, thanks everyone for all the comments. I think maybe I wasn't clear that >> I *only* care about atomicity w.r.t. a signal handler interruption in the >> same thread, *not* across threads. Therefore,

...n mind, I would like to ask, would it be possible to > consider > > switching to LLVM style for lld? > > We don't usually enforce code styles on side projects because it > doesn't make sense to do so. This is not completely accurate. Both LLD and LLDB were given specific exemptions from the coding standards, but Clang wasn't and I wouldn't expect a new subproject to *necessarily* get such an exemption. It might, it might not. I consider the current state with both LLD and LLDB a bug rather than a feature because it creates pointless and non-trivial disruption for de...

...emporal store in a > single processor's instruction stream after a non-temporal store may > be overwritten by the non-temporal store. Do you see something I'm > missing? If not, for single-thread signals, I think it's only compiler > reordering James has to worry about. The exemption I'm referring to (Section 8.2.2 of System Programming Guide from Intel) is to the write-write ordering of the *single-processor* model. Reading the referenced section on the non-temporal behavior for these instructions (10.4.6 of volume 1 of the architecture manual) doesn't entirely clarify...

Are there any scenarios that require traffic from a zone to itself to be blocked? If not, Shorewall should possibly allow it as a matter of course. It seems strange having to explicitly create such a policy & it''s not immediately obvious when it is required. -- Taso Hatzi caesar 17 <<-salad cjbx jc vdwwjar jc xi jc jd salad

...one other than the intended recipient is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient please advise the sender immediately by returning the e-mail and deleting it from your system. This information may be exempt from disclosure under Freedom Of Information Act 2000 and may be subject to exemption under other UK information legislation. Refer disclosure requests to the Information Officer The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Energis in partnership with MessageLabs. On leaving the GSi this...

Sorry for the off-topic, but perhaps this will be of interest to other asterisk based ITSPs. We are starting service in a rural area where the ILEC has the rural "monopoly". From what we have read in the FCC docs this does NOT exempt them from number portability, but what does it take for us to qualify to receive their numbers? To date we simply have a few voice trunks to them,

Robin Lynn Frank wrote: > I have an entire /8 blacklisted. The problem is there is a single IP in > it I want to exempt from this. Searching the web site, I note there > used to be (circa version 1.3) a whitelist feature, but I couldn''t find > a simple solution to what I want to do. > > What would be the bes/easiest way to accomplish this? I can''t think of a

...out loopholes, you can pretty much drive trucks through that document because of what they removed (and things like ripping out the warranty disclaimer make it significantly worse for both users, and corporations) Or do you mean something else? > > I’m also not completely convinced that the exemption to 4.d actually does > what we’d need with respect to libc++. In FreeBSD, we compile most > packages with clang, but a few with gcc (and all with gcc on a couple of > architectures). We use libc++ for all C++ code, irrespective of how it was > compiled. When we are not compiling with...

>Would you users donate money if that was available? Even if it was $1? >I mean, 100k people donating $1 each could go a long way. Setting up some sort of tax-exempt organization (similar to the FSF) may be useful here. I don't mind chipping in my £1 worth, but getting a tax deduction at the same time would persuade more people to donate, I think.

Hey, I was fiddling with wonder shaper and it works great, except in my situation I only have 1 real network interface and the other interface is a virtual interface ie eth0:0, and tc doesn''t seem to support that. I have 2 subnets, one of which goes to the router which then goes to the internet, and the other subnet which contains the rest of the computers which go through this server

...at any distribution, disclosure, printing, copying, storage, modification or the taking of any action in reliance upon this transmission is strictly prohibited. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient shall not compromise or waive such confidentiality, privilege or exemption from disclosure as to this communication. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message from your system. [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 1:13 PM, James Y Knight <foom at fuhm.net> wrote: > Hi, thanks everyone for all the comments. I think maybe I wasn't clear that > I *only* care about atomicity w.r.t. a signal handler interruption in the > same thread, *not* across threads. Therefore, many of the problems of > cross-CPU atomicity are not relevant. The signal handler gets invoked via

Greetings, I'm working with a new CentOS 7 installation, moving a system up from CentOS 5 due to OpenSSL version 0.9.8e not meeting PCI Compliance requirements. However, while setting up the CentOS 7 environment one of the closed source applications is requiring 0.9.8. The software vendor has advised installing package openssl098e from yum; but I'm hesitant to do so from a

...source file where the checks happen is "src/library/base/R/library.R". I think one solution could be to add something like if(identical(pkgInfo$DESCRIPTION[["Priority"]], "base")) return() to the beginning of checkLicense(), or add more packages to the hard-coded exemption list checked before calling checkLicense(). Also, in find.package(), the shortcut list of standard packages is missing "compiler". -- Mikko Korpela Department of Geosciences and Geography University of Helsinki

Dear all, I would be grateful if anyone can help me with the following: My aim is to compute explicitely the sum S=A+B where A=sum(exp(c_i/d)), i=1,...,n; B, c_i, and d are real numbers with -Inf<B,c_i<+Inf; and d>0. The problem is that when c_i/d >710 (for some i) R is setting exp(c_i/d) to be equal to +Inf and hence the whole summation S. So in simple cases where for example c_i=8

On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 5 October 2014 19:45, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > This is not completely accurate. Both LLD and LLDB were given specific > > exemptions from the coding standards, but Clang wasn't and I wouldn't > expect > > a new subproject to *necessarily* get such an exemption. It might, it > might > > not. > > Why exemptions are made is beyond the point, once it's made, there are > mainly two ways to move...