search for: multistep

...9;' (http://dannorth.net/whats-in-a-story) but I am still having a hard time knowing when I should break requirements up into separate stories or keep them as scenarios. I am currently trying to write a story (stories) for the registration process of a site. The registration process is a multistep process that changes based on the type/role of user that is signing up. So depending on the user''s role (given by the user on the first step) I will be asking different questions. Should I write stories for each of these roles or should these just be scenarios of the following story...

...e per 30 day period (the 30 day window includes the day the event of interest is counted).   The solution should count only the following events per subject(per the 30-day blackout rule):   ID Date  auto1 1/1/2010  auto2 2/12/2010  auto2 4/21/2011  auto3 3/1/2010  auto3 5/3/2010    I have created a multistep process to do this, but it is extremely clumsy (detailed below).  I have to believe that one of you has a much more elegant solution.  Thank you all in advance for any help!!!!   ##     example data data1 <- structure(list(ID = structure(c(2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L,3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L),...

...The first has 30 "Pass Argument" statements though only these 5 are distinct. Across these 5 there are 190 distinct flags. The multi-step compilation has only 140 distinct flags. Comparing the flags, 18 from the multi-step are missing in the 1pass, and 67 from 1pass are missing in the multistep. These appear to be opt flags, since they cause an error when trying to use them with clang (e.g. -x86-fixup-LEAs) and when used with opt causes a crash with stack dump and request to submit a bug report. Others like -attributor appear to work with opt. I'm currently blindly trying to add the...

...ent" statements though only these 5 are >> distinct. Across these 5 there are 190 distinct flags. The multi-step >> compilation has only 140 distinct flags. Comparing the flags, 18 from the >> multi-step are missing in the 1pass, and 67 from 1pass are missing in the >> multistep. >> >> These appear to be opt flags, since they cause an error when trying to >> use them with clang (e.g. -x86-fixup-LEAs) and when used with opt causes >> a crash with stack dump and request to submit a bug report. Others like >> -attributor appear to work with opt....

...ing users mail over to the new installation, but the one snag we are running into is ensuring we are able to get the users credentials stored in our system. We are migrating the email from a Gmail ISP account to our installation as they are discontinuing their support next year. The setup is a multistep process we are hoping to accomplish. When a connection is started to our cluster, it will first check the database to see if the credentials match, if not it will verify against Gmail's servers. If the Gmail test is successful, it would pass the credentials to a script to store them for futur...

...pe/)solves it by using *nix's fork command, which takes as much time as a memcopy. Rho(http://rho-project.org) solves it by maintaining a pool of idling R processes, which it maintains active & can pull to do a calculation immediately. Both of these are pretty immediate & allow multistep/session calculations.(As compared to CGI stuff) cheers, Nathan Here's a related question: Do any of the mentioned R-web interfaces (Rweb, R-Online, CGIwithR, RSPerl) support reusing the same R process, eliminating the startup overhead? This would be useful to me as well. Currently I us...

...n ordering commits by date. Instead, I think it should be ordered by merge, or specifically, a pre-order, depth-first traversal of the commit tree. I believe people care more about when the patch entered their own repository than when the author made the commit to his or hers. Proposal: a slow, multistep, backward-compatible transition to remove the disincentive to contribute patches from private forks: Step 1: Demonstrate "git log" or a similar tool can produce a linear history in the presence of merging. This may already be possible. Step 2: Swap the roles of git and svn. Make svn t...

...a hypothetical claim which I haven't tested. There are numerous groups (including mine) working with LLVM without any problem due to this. There are even several that *do* have some code which doesn't go upstream, and they also are not thwarted by this. <snip> > Proposal: a slow, multistep, backward-compatible transition to remove > the disincentive to contribute patches from private forks: I strongly doubt that this is the primary barrier for the contribution of such patches. Code review, the fact that these patches have accreted for long periods of time outside the view of the...

Hi, I'm running a calculation in two ways. The first way is to employ vectors and evaluate a function in one go. The second way is to break down the function into pieces and combine the pieces to the final answer. Algebraically, they should give me the same result. But the final vector differs significantly. I must be missing something very obvious, but I just cannot see it xx <-

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:18 PM, <m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote: > Chris Murphy wrote: >> DBAN is obsolete. NIST 800-88 for some time now says to use secure erase >> or enhanced security erase or crypto erase if supported. >> >> Other options do not erase data in remapped sectors. > > dban doesn't? What F/OSS does "secure erase"? And does it do

Do you know when you are filling out a registration for a new account, and you keep pressing next to fill the rest of the information in separate pages? I''d like to do that, but I have no idea how. Basically I have a company model with its information, and a contacts model, with belongs to my company (also each company has only one contact), and I''d like for the user to fill in

...e had (and probably impossible without)). > > > That is what using RADIUS apparently leads to when you have devices using > PXE boot. Maybe they need to be considered as a security risk and be > replaced. > OK I think this is where we are also getting confusion. PXE booting is a multistep process to get a hardware device onto the network and running a provided kernel. It is also something which usually only works on wireless in controlled situations (aka magic). So people aren't sure why you are wanting to PXE boot something a customer would carry (aka a cell phone/tablet) sinc...

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Michael, > >> As for actually switching to git. I see no benefit to justify the cost >> of switching unless we actually take advantage of git's features. And >> I've yet to see anyone propose this. > > Then I'll be the first. :) I'd suggest you/others read the

Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 1 March 2018 at 08:42, hw <hw at gc-24.de> wrote: > >> >> I didn?t say I want that, and I don?t know yet what I want. A captive >> portal may >> be nice, but I haven?t found a way to set one up yet, and I don?t have an >> access >> point controller which would provide one, so I can?t tell if that?s the >>

...). >> >> >> That is what using RADIUS apparently leads to when you have devices using >> PXE boot. Maybe they need to be considered as a security risk and be >> replaced. >> > > OK I think this is where we are also getting confusion. PXE booting is > a multistep process to get a hardware device onto the network and > running a provided kernel. It is also something which usually only > works on wireless in controlled situations (aka magic). Oh I never thought of using it for wireless devices. > So people aren't sure why you are wanting to PXE...

Hi Michael, > As for actually switching to git. I see no benefit to justify the cost > of switching unless we actually take advantage of git's features. And > I've yet to see anyone propose this. Then I'll be the first. :) The benefit is that the review process would require no file copies or email attachments, shorter email conversations, no copying code during reviews to