search for: objectors

...and responses to concerns > are unknown and therefore not addressable. I didn't want private meetings either, but repeatedly requesting public feedback for the RFC or patches hadn't provided reasoning behind any concerns that people had. The agreement reached at the meeting was for the objectors to post their reasons for objecting and counter-proposal in public so discussion could take place, and Arm would investigate the details of the counter-proposal. Unfortunately, that post never happened, so I found myself a bit stuck and had to post it for them -- not a situation I wanted. I have...

Hello! [Cc to stable@, for wider audience] The plan is two axe two old networking protocols from FreeBSD head/, meaning that FreeBSD 11.0-RELEASE, available in couple of years would be shipped without them. 1) AppleTalk Last time claimed to be supported by vendor in 2007[1]. In practice had very little use since 90th. Discontinued by major routing equipment vendors since 2009[2].

Does anyone has already tried to use R with an object database such as O2 or objectore, or versant ? Does anyone knows an api to store R object in such a database and to load R object from such a database ? -------------------------------------------------------- Ce message et toutes les pieces jointes peuvent etre confidentiels, et, de plus, peuvent etre couverts par un privilege ou une

> On Mar 14, 2019, at 5:45 AM, Graham Hunter via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > We would like to be able to reach consensus on an approach around the end > of EuroLLVM this year so that we can begin a full implementation. EuroLLVM will be a very good occasion to hear all the opinions and reach consensus on the approach. @Graham, maybe you should set up a

We held a round-table at the llvm dev conference about what other pieces of Github infrastructure we may want to use. This thread in particular is about switching to github issue tracking. Use of other parts of Github functionality was also discussed -- but that should be for other email threads. Most of the ideas here were from other people. I *believe* this proposal represents the overall

Hello fans of the auto keyword! We now have a policy on how LLVM toolchains get updated <https://reviews.llvm.org/rL351765>! Let’s put that policy to good use, and talk about how we’ll move all monorepo projects past C++11. Previous Discussions LLVM dev meeting 2018 BoF "Migrating to C++14, and beyond! <http://llvm.org/devmtg/2018-10/talk-abstracts.html#bof3>" A Short