search for: reticence

On 6/24/2015 1:06 PM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: > Gordon Messmer wrote: >> On 06/23/2015 08:10 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote: >>> Ok, you made me curious. Just how dramatic can it be? From where I'm >>> sitting, a read/write to a disk takes the amount of time it takes, the >>> hardware has a certain physical speed, regardless of the presence of >>>

V&R describes binomial GLMs with mortality out of 20 budworms. Is it appropriate to use the same approach with mortality out of numbers as low as 3? I feel reticent to do so with data that is not very continuous. There are one continuous and one categorical independent variables. Would it be more appropriate to treat the response as an ordered factor with four levels? If so, what family

Robert Heller wrote: > At Thu, 25 Jun 2015 11:03:18 -0400 CentOS mailing list <centos at centos.org> > wrote: >> On Wed, June 24, 2015 16:11, Chuck Campbell wrote: >> > >> > Is there an easy to follow "howto" for normal LVM administration >> > tasks. I get tired of googling every-time I have to do something >> > I don't remember

On Wed, June 24, 2015 16:11, Chuck Campbell wrote: > > Is there an easy to follow "howto" for normal LVM administration > tasks. I get tired of googling every-time I have to do something > I don't remember how to do regarding LVM, so I usually just > don't bother with it at all. > > I believe it has some benefit for my use cases, but I've been >

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:49:57AM -0500, Jason Warr wrote: > > > On 6/24/2015 3:11 PM, Chuck Campbell wrote: > >Is there an easy to follow "howto" for normal LVM administration > >tasks. I get tired of googling every-time I have to do something I > >don't remember how to do regarding LVM, so I usually just don't > >bother with it at all. I

...00 headers. As for the 340, for an highly replaceable library comprising 1% of our LOC to bloat the source file count in our tree by 20%—after using a script to extract a perfect transitive dependency closure—well, I was on the verge of tossing it overboard. I can't blame Chris for his reticence to add such nonsense to LLVM, as it only serves to slow builds and source control operations for all. That said, there are some parts of boost which are well-structured with few or minimal dependencies—like shared_pointer. I feel there's not a lot of need to rewrite these headers. Then a...

On 05/29/17 04:13 AM, Damien Miller wrote: > On Fri, 26 May 2017, Tomas Kuthan wrote: > >> Hi team, >> >> Any chance my patch introducing new sftp-server option '-t idle_timout' [1,2] >> could be accepted into openssh/openssh-portable? > > I think the best place to implement a idle timeout is in sshd. Then it > could be made per-channel and be able to

Hi Zach! I've been thinking a bit about this for a while now and I'm still of two opinions: On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 9:21 AM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Currently llvm-objcopy only supports ELF files, and most of it's command > line flags are ELF / DWARF specific that don't make any sense on COFF > files. So a useful set of

Currently llvm-objcopy only supports ELF files, and most of it's command line flags are ELF / DWARF specific that don't make any sense on COFF files. So a useful set of options for COFF would be largely disjoint, with maybe 1-2 overlapping options. What would be the best way to add this in llvm-objcopy? I can think of 3 options: 1) Re-write the existing CLI of llvm-objcopy to use

Hello, I am running Samba 2.2.2 with acl-0.7.16 on RedHat 6.2 (2.2.19). The PDC is a Windows 2000 Server and the Samba server is a domain member using Winbind. All the workstations are Windoze 2000 Pro with SP2. Everything seemingly works fine but every day or two I get a runaway SMBD process which hogs the CPU and becomes unkillable. The only resolution is to reboot the server completely.

On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 9:56 AM Eric Christopher via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi Zach! > > I've been thinking a bit about this for a while now and I'm still of two > opinions: > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 9:21 AM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Currently llvm-objcopy only supports ELF

Hi Folks, I''m still a bit confused about the issue of storing "complex" objects in session state rather than storing simple objects. It''s my understanding that everything is an object in Ruby. If my understanding is correct, then storing a string or an integer in session means storing an object. It would seem then that the problem of storing objects in session is a

Hi, It's not clear to me what you mean by CLI "subcommands". Would you mind giving a brief example? Up to now, we've been trying to keep llvm-objcopy as close as possible to GNU objcopy, to make transitioning between them easier (I'm thinking in particular things like DWO generation). There are a small number of edge cases/unusual behaviours that we have chosen not to

On 6/24/2015 3:11 PM, Chuck Campbell wrote: > Is there an easy to follow "howto" for normal LVM administration > tasks. I get tired of googling every-time I have to do something I > don't remember how to do regarding LVM, so I usually just don't bother > with it at all. I believe it has some benefit for my use cases, but > I've been reticent to use it,

On Thu, June 25, 2015 11:59 am, Scott Robbins wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:49:57AM -0500, Jason Warr wrote: >> >> >> On 6/24/2015 3:11 PM, Chuck Campbell wrote: >> >Is there an easy to follow "howto" for normal LVM administration >> >tasks. I get tired of googling every-time I have to do something I >> >don't remember how to do

Hello Syslinux Team, Syslinux 5.xx / 6.xx are currently showing some backward compatibility issues. Between the ML and the IRC, there have been some comments / reports regarding memtest, older kernels, plop boot manager, ifplop.c32, hdt.c32... In some cases, the problems were seen when booting with some specific variant of Syslinux 5.xx / 6.xx (say, ISOLINUX only, or PXELINUX only); or with

...As for the 340, for an highly replaceable library comprising 1% of our > LOC to bloat the source file count in our tree by 20%—after using a > script to extract a perfect transitive dependency closure—well, I was > on the verge of tossing it overboard. I can't blame Chris for his > reticence to add such nonsense to LLVM, as it only serves to slow > builds and source control operations for all. Totally agree that we should not be pulling boost into the source tree. But I will reassert my point that using Boost as a library can be a good thing. Yes, it's an additional dependenc...

On Wed, 2019-10-30 at 15:30 -0700, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: > > On Oct 30, 2019, at 3:07 AM, Jeroen Dobbelaere via llvm-dev < > > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > > From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of JF > > > Bastien via > > > > [..] > > > Is it relevant to any modern compiler

Hi Chris, Thanks a lot for a detailed opinion and explanation! It really answers the original question, without going to far into political discussions about boost and generic allocators pros/cons aspects. ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ---- > Von: Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> > An: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Gesendet: Sonntag, den 18. Mai

An update of the ext3 journalling filesystem for 2.4 kernels is available at http://www.uow.edu.au/~andrewm/linux/ext3/ Patches are against 2.4.6-ac1 and 2.4.6. Changes since 0.0.8 include: - Multiplied the version numbering by ten to cater for bugfix releases against the 0.9.0 stream. - The main thrust has been the removal of a number of changes in the core kernel which were required