search for: exemptions

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?

I wanted to make sure that everyone was aware of a slight change we''ve made to the process for open source contributions. For *trivial* contributions, we are no longer requiring a Contributor License Agreement (CLA). Note that for most contributions 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

-----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 dev...

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at google.com> wrote: > 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

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

can somebody point me in the direction of some sample c/c++ code for encoding stereo product esp wideband mode thanks in anticipation Andy Basford The information contained in this message (and any attachments) may be confidential and is intended for the sole use of the named addressee. Access, copying, alteration or re-use of the e-mail by anyone other than the intended recipient is

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

> > > > I’m still not completely convinced by this argument, given that the > majority of patent lawsuits come from NPEs. That is not necessarily where the majority of patent lawsuit *danger* comes from, and i'd argue, pretty strongly, it's not the most likely case for LLVM. > We’d still be in the situation where a malicious contributor could: > > 1. Spin up a

>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

Hi, I just installed R on a new windows 7 machine and am having a probelm with the default libraries. The default libraries are not what I want them to be so when i say install.packages("XXX") the packages don't install where I want them to. Ideally everything would install to the same location as the base packages. When I look at my library paths I get the following. >

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

When 'getOption("checkPackageLicense")' is 'TRUE' and the user calls 'library(grid)' for the first time, R asks the user to either accept or decline the package license. This should not be necessary as the package license is "Part of R ..." with "..." denoting the R version number, and R is free and open source. The unnecessary license

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...