search for: inconvenienced

...n XDR format, so that there will be less trouble with heterogeneous Unix networks. Because the format of saved files will change, we must either be incompatible or have some mechanism for restoring old save files. I would rather avoid the compatibility route if possible. Would anyone be seriously inconvenienced if old data files could not be restored? (Its not hard to build in compatibility, it would just take time which could be spend elsewhere). Ross =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.ht...

...y. Mailing lists will remain available throughout the procedure as they are not hosted on llvm.org. I will send email to llvmdev when the repository is back online. I apologize for the inconvenience, but there's not much I can do about it. If it's any consolation, know that I will be inconvenienced just as much as everyone else. -- John T.

...printable = yes valid users = @DDS+"DOMAIN USERS" @DDS+"DOMAIN WEBUSERS" All help is appreciated. Thanks, Kevin Bramblett Network Administrator DSS Research No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

...is a sigh of relief that this hopefully will be all over and off the list. I for one have seen enough positive comments to know that your company is a quality player. The fact that you have followed up with the community and been so forthright also says a lot. Mistakes happen. Sometimes people get inconvenienced. The quality companies address the issue and fix it as best they can. I don't think we can ask for much more than that. Keep up the good work and keep that pricing aggressive... 8) Cheers, Wiley Siler Who has been drunk with "important" people....

...unk seem to be fine with this, so while I'm interested in anything we can do to make it easier for you, unless we see significantly more concerns about this plan, I think we should move forward. Fundamentally, we aren't going to be able to make everyone happy. Some people will be seriously inconvenienced by this, but thus far the benefit seems to significantly outweigh the cost. That said, while I'm about to commit the change to the release notes and send a summary email to the dev lists, we should continue discussing this. Nothing is going to be set in stone until the 3.4 release goes out, an...

...s domain and > the first one is > working fine using Samba 2.2.3a. > > All help is very much appreciated! > > Kevin Bramblett > Network Administrator > > No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However > a large number > of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the > instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba >

...now Windows NT/W2K allows multiple groups and I would think Linux would as well, but I cannot find in my documentation anything about this subject. Thanks, Kevin Bramblett Network Administrator No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

...in available throughout the procedure as they are not hosted on > llvm.org. > > I will send email to llvmdev when the repository is back online. > > I apologize for the inconvenience, but there's not much I can do about > it. If it's any consolation, know that I will be inconvenienced just as > much as everyone else. > > -- John T. > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >

...this, so while I'm interested in anything we can do to > make it easier for you, unless we see significantly more concerns > about this plan, I think we should move forward. > > Fundamentally, we aren't going to be able to make everyone happy. Some > people will be seriously inconvenienced by this, but thus far the > benefit seems to significantly outweigh the cost. But the benefit is still there even if it takes a month or two longer. This is a *serious* issue. It doesn't seem like people really comprehend the challenges of upgrading toolchains in large software projects....

>> ...snip... > > Also for a note of reference, your links to the examples are the > most advanced samples. So boost can do more, thus has more weight/ > bloat behind it. > > Were the other test kits looked at? Is gtest the best solution for > the project. > > Is this something your planning as putting in the tree, thus require > pulling in changes from

On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Mark Kromis <greybird at mac.com> wrote: > > On Dec 27, 2008, at 7:41 PM, Misha Brukman wrote: > > 2008/12/27 Mark Kromis <greybird at mac.com> > >> Just a curiosity question, why push for gtest vs Boost Test or >> a different test suite? >> I normally use Boost, and their test suite, so I'm more familiar with

Message-ID: <479F2A63.2070408 at centos.org> On: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:30:11 -0600, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> Subject Was: [CentOS] Unknown rootkit causes compromised servers > > SOME of the script kiddies check higher ports for SSH *_BUT_* I only see > 4% of the brute force attempts to login on ports other than 22. > > I would say that dropping brute force

2008/12/27 Mark Kromis <greybird at mac.com> > Is this something your planning as putting in the tree, >> thus require pulling in changes from google (license allowing), or does user >> need to have the libraries/headers pre-installed? >> > > Including it in the tree is the most reasonable thing to do. No point in > inconveniencing the user over tiny libraries

...e this a little easier to swallow: a. forkCDR behavior for existing users WILL NOT CHANGE. Users have to add options to the call to get the new behavior. b. No existing users should be hurt by the enhancement. If they found a magic way to make it do what needed to be done, they will not be inconvenienced, unless they have stray accidental options in their forkcdr() calls in their dialplan, that just happen to line up with an option that will be added. I don't see this as a major problem. My best explanation for all this is that forkCDR, and how it was *meant* to be used, was never do...

...he feature makes LLVM significantly easier to maintain or paves the way for a new feature in the build system, then the inconvenience I'll face is worth it. On the other hand, if you're just removing the feature because you don't see a need for it, then from my perspective, I'm inconvenienced for nothing. -- John T.

Hi Oscar, Is there a way to make it work with CMake 2.6? That is what the public win32 buildbot has and I hate messing around with it. - Daniel On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: > Aaron Gray <aaronngray.lists at gmail.com> writes: > >> I am getting the following error from CMake :- >> >>     CMake Error at

...available throughout the procedure as they are not hosted on > llvm.org. > > I will send email to llvmdev when the repository is back online. > > I apologize for the inconvenience, but there's not much I can do about > it. If it's any consolation, know that I will be inconvenienced just as > much as everyone else. > > -- John T. > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

It appears that my attempts to "chase" emails on this list are not being taken to kindly. (The most recent response actually really stung.) So: I plan to not chase this thread. This is not easy for me because I like "closure", but oh well. I noticed a bug that is not inconveniencing me at all. In fact, it's saving me a few characters of typing. I consider it my duty as a

...one is interested in these possibilities, perhaps they could contact me off-list and we can decide if there is sufficient willingness to try to add the functionality in a graceful way. That is, we should encourage but not require masks and bounds, and should make sure that existing uses are not inconvenienced. Cheers, John Nash

Hi Folks, I don't often grumble, but this time I've found myself inconvenienced by a posting stored on R-help archives: https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2009-September/211095.html This was Karin Groothuis-Oudshoorn & Stef van Buuren's message on 10 September about the new version of MICE. This has been sent by software which inserted no line-breaks. As a result...