Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "fairest".
Did you mean:
failes
2003 Jul 01
6
Enhanced queue app
...to log agent out or skip and place agent at bottom of
>> queue. (Not really necessary but I could see it being useful for agents
>> working from home with kids.)
>>
>> Calls would be routed to the agent who took a call successfully
>> longest ago. This would be the fairest way to distribute them to the
>> busiest people. People on a call unrelated to that queue would maintain
>> their position in the queue order unless they logged out. A busy agent
>> could be making outbound calls and it would be unfair to penalize them
>> for being unavailab...
2016 Jun 03
3
Switching to git (Windows experience) (was re:[cfe-dev] GitHub anyone?)
>On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 6:31 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:
>> I think we should start two other threads: one about git tooling on Windows
>> and one about infrastructure problems migrating to git.
>
>Some developers on Windows prefer to use GUI tools like TortoiseSVN to
>command line tools for version control. The last time I tried
2016 Jun 03
2
Switching to git (Windows experience) (was re:[cfe-dev] GitHub anyone?)
...are not about personal opinions any more, they're about technical
> issues.
>
> As I loosely collected from the previous (opinion) thread, there were
> about 80% of the people strongly in favour, with some 10% undecided
> and 10% against. If we were *only* to take those odds, the fairest
> thing to do would be to move unconditionally to Git.
>
> But we can't ignore the technical details. All Git supporters are
> doing now, is to find a workflow that is sane under Git-only. If we
> can't find one, there's no point in moving. If we can, *then* we'll do...
2016 Jun 03
3
Switching to git (Windows experience) (was re:[cfe-dev] GitHub anyone?)
...>are not about personal opinions any more, they're about technical
>issues.
>
>As I loosely collected from the previous (opinion) thread, there were
>about 80% of the people strongly in favour, with some 10% undecided
>and 10% against. If we were *only* to take those odds, the fairest
>thing to do would be to move unconditionally to Git.
That were people who was directly involved in this discussion. Probably there are lots
of other opinions. Probably not.
>But we can't ignore the technical details. All Git supporters are
>doing now, is to find a workflow that is s...
2020 Jun 25
4
Inclusive language in LLVM: can we rename `job` in source code?
On 25.06.2020 01:19, Fedor Sergeev via llvm-dev wrote:
> On 6/21/20 10:41 PM, Ivan Kush via llvm-dev wrote:
>> Yes, broad. But what guys say: "You LLVM developers are all racists, because you use 'master' word"
>> Or broader: "You all developers are all racists, because you use 'master' word". We are not racists, but other guys think so.
>>