search for: imvho

...With this version executing stored proc dies with: Password query failed: PROCEDURE mailsql.Authorize can't return a result set in the given context Replacing stored proc call with select .... statement does the thing, but it's stored procedures are ... generally better to do things on DB imvho :-) Downgrading to dovetot-1.0_rc7 fixes the problem immediately. Of course /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf remains the same in either case. Is this a bug or change made on purpose? -- Chaos greets U -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://dovecot.org/...

Does mailbox with "\NoSelect" can be select or examine? I'm not sure but IMVHO "select x" should not work. $/usr/lib/dovecot/imap * PREAUTH [CAPABILITY IMAP4rev1 LITERAL+ SASL-IR LOGIN-REFERRALS ID ENABLE IDLE SORT SORT=DISPLAY THREAD=REFERENCES THREAD=REFS THREAD=ORDEREDSUBJECT MULTIAPPEND UNSELECT CHILDREN NAMESPACE UIDPLUS LIST-EXTENDED I18NLEVEL=1 CONDSTORE Q...

...Clang when dealing with switch fall-through to empty case > statements or to cases that only contain a break/continue/return > statement[2][3][4]. Are we sure we want to make this change? Was it discussed before? Are there any bugs Clangs puritanical definition of fallthrough helped find? IMVHO compiler warnings are supposed to warn about issues that could be bugs. Falling through to default: break; can hardly be a bug?!

...return > > > > statement[2][3][4]. > > > > > > Are we sure we want to make this change? Was it discussed before? > > > > > > Are there any bugs Clangs puritanical definition of fallthrough helped > > > find? > > > > > > IMVHO compiler warnings are supposed to warn about issues that could > > > be bugs. Falling through to default: break; can hardly be a bug?! > > > > It's certainly a place where the intent is not always clear. I think > > this makes all the cases unambiguous, and doesn...

...return > > > > statement[2][3][4]. > > > > > > Are we sure we want to make this change? Was it discussed before? > > > > > > Are there any bugs Clangs puritanical definition of fallthrough helped > > > find? > > > > > > IMVHO compiler warnings are supposed to warn about issues that could > > > be bugs. Falling through to default: break; can hardly be a bug?! > > > > It's certainly a place where the intent is not always clear. I think > > this makes all the cases unambiguous, and doesn...

...return > > > > statement[2][3][4]. > > > > > > Are we sure we want to make this change? Was it discussed before? > > > > > > Are there any bugs Clangs puritanical definition of fallthrough helped > > > find? > > > > > > IMVHO compiler warnings are supposed to warn about issues that could > > > be bugs. Falling through to default: break; can hardly be a bug?! > > > > It's certainly a place where the intent is not always clear. I think > > this makes all the cases unambiguous, and doesn...

...ases that only contain a break/continue/return > > > statement[2][3][4]. > > > > Are we sure we want to make this change? Was it discussed before? > > > > Are there any bugs Clangs puritanical definition of fallthrough helped > > find? > > > > IMVHO compiler warnings are supposed to warn about issues that could > > be bugs. Falling through to default: break; can hardly be a bug?! > > It's certainly a place where the intent is not always clear. I think > this makes all the cases unambiguous, and doesn't impact the mach...

...om the main code, like we do in LLVM. Yes, that will mean more work for all of us. Yes, that will mean longer test cycles, more test configurations. But that will also mean more people working on it, validating in ways you didn't even know it was possible. That value is worth the extra trouble, IMVHO, and LLVM's success is living proof of that. LLD may be a separate project, and a young one full of energy, but it is also an "LLVM Project". As such, it's bound to the same level of design goals that all LLVM projects share. Not all share all values, but two that we share amongs...

...in replica 3 arbiter 1 it's become a major showstopper: can't stop production, backup everything and restart from scratch every 3-4 months. And there are no tools helping, just log digging :( Even at version 9.6 seems it's not really "production ready"... More like v0.9.6 IMVHO. And now it being EOLed makes it way worse. Diego Il 27/10/2023 09:40, Zakhar Kirpichenko ha scritto: > Hi, > > Red Hat Gluster Storage is EOL, Red Hat moved Gluster devs to other > projects, so Gluster doesn't get much attention. From my experience, it > has deteriorated s...

...to empty case > > statements or to cases that only contain a break/continue/return > > statement[2][3][4]. > > Are we sure we want to make this change? Was it discussed before? > > Are there any bugs Clangs puritanical definition of fallthrough helped > find? > > IMVHO compiler warnings are supposed to warn about issues that could > be bugs. Falling through to default: break; can hardly be a bug?! It's certainly a place where the intent is not always clear. I think this makes all the cases unambiguous, and doesn't impact the machine code, since the co...

...h to empty case >> statements or to cases that only contain a break/continue/return >> statement[2][3][4]. > > Are we sure we want to make this change? Was it discussed before? > > Are there any bugs Clangs puritanical definition of fallthrough helped > find? > > IMVHO compiler warnings are supposed to warn about issues that could > be bugs. Falling through to default: break; can hardly be a bug?! The justification for this is explained in this same changelog text: Now that the -Wimplicit-fallthrough option has been globally enabled[5], any compiler should r...

...t; arbiter 1 it's become a major showstopper: can't stop production, backup > everything and restart from scratch every 3-4 months. And there are no > tools helping, just log digging :( Even at version 9.6 seems it's not > really "production ready"... More like v0.9.6 IMVHO. And now it being > EOLed makes it way worse. > > Diego > > Il 27/10/2023 09:40, Zakhar Kirpichenko ha scritto: > > Hi, > > > > Red Hat Gluster Storage is EOL, Red Hat moved Gluster devs to other > > projects, so Gluster doesn't get much attention. From my...

Hello, The current png-1.2.5_4 port has no more vulnerability. It has been corrected by ache@FreeBSD.org yesterday. But when i try to install the updated port to remplace the vulnerable one this is what i am told : # make install ===> png-1.2.5_4 has known vulnerabilities: >> libpng denial-of-service. Reference:

...it's become a major showstopper: can't stop production, backup >> everything and restart from scratch every 3-4 months. And there are no >> tools helping, just log digging :( Even at version 9.6 seems it's not >> really "production ready"... More like v0.9.6 IMVHO. And now it being >> EOLed makes it way worse. >> >> Diego >> >> Il 27/10/2023 09:40, Zakhar Kirpichenko ha scritto: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Red Hat Gluster Storage is EOL, Red Hat moved Gluster devs to other >>> projects, so Gluster doesn...

Hi, Red Hat Gluster Storage is EOL, Red Hat moved Gluster devs to other projects, so Gluster doesn't get much attention. From my experience, it has deteriorated since about version 9.0, and we're migrating to alternatives. /Z On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 at 10:29, Marcus Peders?n <marcus.pedersen at slu.se> wrote: > Hi all, > I just have a general thought about the gluster >

...it's become a major showstopper: can't stop production, backup >> everything and restart from scratch every 3-4 months. And there are no >> tools helping, just log digging :( Even at version 9.6 seems it's not >> really "production ready"... More like v0.9.6 IMVHO. And now it being >> EOLed makes it way worse. >> >> Diego >> >> Il 27/10/2023 09:40, Zakhar Kirpichenko ha scritto: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Red Hat Gluster Storage is EOL, Red Hat moved Gluster devs to other >>> projects, so Gluster doesn...

Hi all, This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang. In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, explicitly add multiple break/goto/return/fallthrough statements instead of just letting the code fall through to the next case. Notice that in order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, this change[1]

Hi all, This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang. In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, explicitly add multiple break/goto/return/fallthrough statements instead of just letting the code fall through to the next case. Notice that in order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, this change[1]

Hi all, This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang. In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, explicitly add multiple break/goto/return/fallthrough statements instead of just letting the code fall through to the next case. Notice that in order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, this change[1]

...ke we do in LLVM. Yes, that will mean > more work for all of us. Yes, that will mean longer test cycles, more > test configurations. But that will also mean more people working on > it, validating in ways you didn't even know it was possible. That > value is worth the extra trouble, IMVHO, and LLVM's success is living > proof of that. > Currently, as you know, we are working on as-needed basis. There are people working on AArch64, MIPS, FreeBSD, performance optimization, code maintainability, better error reporting, etc. We opened many fronts already because people wish t...