search for: pulls

Anthony, please pull the following changes since commit 6a4e17711442849bf2cc731ccddef5a2a2d92d29: ssh://xenbits.xen.org/home/sstabellini/git/qemu-dm.git xen_fixes_20130603

...soon as it gets integrated in the monorepo). This would be a good candidate to be the guinea pig for this process since it does not yet have a wide established community of contributors, and the current contributors are already exclusively using pull-requests <https://github.com/tensorflow/mlir/pulls>. Here is a more complete doc on the topic: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DSHQrfydSjoqU9zEnj3rIcds6YN59Jxc37MdiggOyaI Cheers, -- Mehdi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20191106/564cd...

...egrated in the monorepo). This would be > a good candidate to be the guinea pig for this process since it does not > yet have a wide established community of contributors, and the current > contributors are already exclusively using pull-requests > <https://github.com/tensorflow/mlir/pulls>. > > Here is a more complete doc on the topic: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DSHQrfydSjoqU9zEnj3rIcds6YN59Jxc37MdiggOyaI > > Cheers, > > -- > Mehdi > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing listllvm-dev at lists.l...

Daniel Sanders via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > Personally, I'd like us to drop the linear history requirement but I > know there's some strong opposition there. The main reason I'd like us > to accept non-linear history in conjunction with pull requests is that > it means that the commits that were tested (whether by the author or > by CI)

On Apr 21, 2017, at 12:54 PM, Jim Klimov wrote: > > Hi guys, I can't help noticing that many PRs seem good to go merged in NUT, so these improvements can either benefit the users instantly, or get exposed to more real-life testing and prove their worth or find issues to fix ;) > > Are there any objections to going on a merging-spree, and boost the morale of external contributors

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > Hi Linus, > Just making sure nothing's wrong with this pull request. > If there's an issue, pls let me know! It was just pulled because I wasn't 100% sure I wanted the extra indirection. Oh well, pulled now. One question: - the arch/sh/ part of the pacth looks dubious. Why does it do

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > Hi Linus, > Just making sure nothing's wrong with this pull request. > If there's an issue, pls let me know! It was just pulled because I wasn't 100% sure I wanted the extra indirection. Oh well, pulled now. One question: - the arch/sh/ part of the pacth looks dubious. Why does it do

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:57:52AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > arch/sh/include/asm/barrier.h | 1 - > > tools/virtio/asm/barrier.h | 22 +- > > tools/virtio/linux/compiler.h | 9 + > > tools/virtio/linux/kernel.h |

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:57:52AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > arch/sh/include/asm/barrier.h | 1 - > > tools/virtio/asm/barrier.h | 22 +- > > tools/virtio/linux/compiler.h | 9 + > > tools/virtio/linux/kernel.h |

Hi, From what I gather, OpenLDAP on Centos 5.x pulls LDAP changes from central LDAP server to a secondary LDAP server. So in other words, you can have your second LDAP server pull the db based on either; type=refreshOnly which mean the pull interval will happen when ever you specify or; type=refreshAndPersist which mean after a pull, keep th...

Hi, It has been observed that rsync push mode is much slower when compared to pull (On Identical scenarios). Building/receiving file list takes almost same time. But data transfer is much slower, whose transfer ratios are ranging from 1:3 to 1:5. On pull operation data transfer speed is consistently around 3.5 MB/Sec and it reached 10 MB/Sec. However, on push the maximum it could reach is

Hi all Thanks for your attention. CTDB manages NICs with event scripts. Virtual IP attaches on a NIC as a secondary IP. When noticing the NIC down, CTDB will pull it up. Does any one know how to disable the action? I do not want CTDB pull any NIC up. Does the command 'ctdb disablescript 10.interface' has any unexpected effect? Thanks.

Good morning, Dave. On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 4:17 AM, David A. Greene <greened at obbligato.org> wrote: > Do git repositories cloned from git-svn mirrors work properly?  For > example: > >                         svn >                          ^ >                          | >                          | >                          V >                       git-svn

NAKAMURA Takumi <geek4civic at gmail.com> writes: >> I don't think one can share commits from clone A to/from clone B without >> going through the parent git-svn repository.  Is that right?  I recall >> having read something about that somewhere. > > Maybe sure on git-svn's branch (eg. master). > "master" should never be pushed to

If eth0 holds virtual IP as its secondary IP and I bring down eth0 by command "ifdown eth0", CTDB will automatically pull eth0 up. Sometime it goes wrong. The virtual IP becomes primary IP, and origin primary IP turns into a secondary IP or just missing. If the origin primary IP is missing, I have to run "ifup eth0" though CTDB has pulled eth0 up. CTDB uses “ip link set eth0

Hi David, Any thoughts on either this pull request, or #129? https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/pull/128 https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/pull/129 Also note the mention of the new Python module here: https://github.com/george2/python-nut2/tree/development - Charles Begin forwarded message: > From: george2 <notifications at github.com> > Subject: [nut] PyNUT: Fix error

I believe (and I believe it was James who pointed this out on IRC) that Phabricator pulls in all refs, and GitHub stores PR commits under refs/pull. On 5/30/19, 3:37 PM, "llvm-dev on behalf of Tom Stellard via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org on behalf of llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: On 05/30/2019 10:04 AM, Sachkov, Alexey via llvm-dev wrote:...

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016, at 15:08, James Aylett wrote: > On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 08:17:05PM +0200, rsto at paranoia.at wrote: > > I'll notify you when the CJK pull request passes Travis. > > That's great, thanks! Alright, after lots of fiddling with .travis.yml I finally made the pull request build on Travis' trusty image: https://github.com/xapian/xapian/pull/114 I have

The following includes vhost-net fixes - both in the experimental zero copy mode. Please pull for 3.1. Thanks!

The following includes vhost-net fixes - both in the experimental zero copy mode. Please pull for 3.1. Thanks!