similar to: Backporting instructions in Contributing guide

Hi Folks, There is much discussion where I work at present regarding migrations, and the ''correct'' usage or not of them. TL;DR Should migrations be used just to modify schema, and other ''deploy'' tasks done other ways? If yes, how to ensure no repeat runs of such tasks (seeds, jobs etc) Background Once you''re live there are often additional things

System: Linux 2.6.25.6-55.fc9.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Jun 10 16:05:21 EDT 2008 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux Dovecot: dovecot-1.0.14-8.fc9.x86_64 We have used Dovecot for several years. The error message below appears in the system log quite frequently. I have run a test which shows that this message is due to 2 or more users accessing the same mail (i.e connecting using the same userid). This

> Are these two backends ABI compatible? They should be, where there's overlap. AArch64 doesn't have any MachO support at the moment. ARM64 does have ELF support (obviously with less testing than AArch64's). Any ABI discrepancy would be considered a bug. > If I have a toolchain setup for the existing aarch64-linux-gnu triple, could > I try the new backend and still have

Hi Hal, > Is a different target triple the right thing to do here? I think that would introduce a ton of user confusion. How about we keep the target triples as they are, and add some other way to choose the desired backend? In the short term, it's almost essential. Both of these targets are going to be existing simultaneously for a while and all the LLVM tools (for testing if nothing

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=911 Summary: The ICMPv6 type is param-problem or parameter-problem ? Product: nftables Version: unspecified Platform: x86_64 OS/Version: Debian GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: nft AssignedTo: pablo at

Hello- This goes for all those insterested in contributing with the effort to have better Debian documentation, and are willing to submit material to the Science section of the DURG, in order to divulge R to a wider public. Please write directly to the author of the Science: Andreas Franzen <anfra at debian.org> Regards, Henry L.

> Dear R Helpers! > > bgtest{lmtest} performs the Breusch-Godfrey test for higher > order serial > correlation. > > Is the Higher Order Correlation function already programmed in > R I couldn't find it? > > Sergei Petrov > ?acf ?pacf HTH, Bernhard ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you have received this e-mail

How do you add an "Administrator" account to ldap. I want to leave root in /etc/passwd but have "Administrator" in ldap I have checked Howto Collection and the Samba-Ldap-3 but they contain no information. The Ldap-Howto has a suggestion but then says not to use. Godfrey

Relevant part of "net3 groupmap list" is System Operators (S-1-5-21-1617713866-2789119093-1479812082-1007) -> sys In howto there is the following example net groupmap modify ntgroup="System Operators" unixgroup=sys net groupmap modify ntgroup="Power Users" unixgroup=sys You can add System Operators but trying to add Power Users fails. If you do it in reverse

I have two versions of a bibtex database which have gotten badly out of sync. I need to find find all the entries in bib2 which are not contained in bib1, according to their bibtex keys. But I can't figure out how to extract a list of the bibentry keys in these databases. A minor question: Is there someway to prevent read.bib from ignoring entries that do not contain all required fields?

I originally brought this up in: https://github.com/rails/rails/issues/9067 Rails paved the way for Object#tap and Object#try...I''d like to propose Object#tap_if and its counterpart,Object#tap_unless. I''ve been following 37signals conventions of tapping variables in the views: <% account.owner.tap do |user| %> ... <% end %> But, I find myself having to do this

On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 9:04?AM Uwe Kleine-K?nig <u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de> wrote: > > hello Sean, > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 02:31:02PM -0400, Sean Paul wrote: > > I'd really prefer this patch (series or single) is not accepted. This > > will cause problems for everyone cherry-picking patches to a > > downstream kernel (LTS or distro tree). I

On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 9:04?AM Uwe Kleine-K?nig <u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de> wrote: > > hello Sean, > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 02:31:02PM -0400, Sean Paul wrote: > > I'd really prefer this patch (series or single) is not accepted. This > > will cause problems for everyone cherry-picking patches to a > > downstream kernel (LTS or distro tree). I

hello Sean, On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 02:31:02PM -0400, Sean Paul wrote: > I'd really prefer this patch (series or single) is not accepted. This > will cause problems for everyone cherry-picking patches to a > downstream kernel (LTS or distro tree). I usually wouldn't expect > sympathy here, but the questionable benefit does not outweigh the cost > IM[biased]O. I agree that

hello Sean, On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 02:31:02PM -0400, Sean Paul wrote: > I'd really prefer this patch (series or single) is not accepted. This > will cause problems for everyone cherry-picking patches to a > downstream kernel (LTS or distro tree). I usually wouldn't expect > sympathy here, but the questionable benefit does not outweigh the cost > IM[biased]O. I agree that

Hi, I am sending this proposal to get feedbacks on how we could make the tagging of bug fixes and regressions more obvious. The idea is to provide easily accessible information to help deciding what to cherry-pick in a release branch. * Context * People shipping compilers based on LLVM may not completely align with the official releases of LLVM. Thus, the stabilization of each custom release

On 13/07/2023 16:09, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: > Hi > > Am 13.07.23 um 16:41 schrieb Sean Paul: >> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 9:04?AM Uwe Kleine-K?nig >> <u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de> wrote: >>> >>> hello Sean, >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 02:31:02PM -0400, Sean Paul wrote: >>>> I'd really prefer this patch

On 13/07/2023 16:09, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: > Hi > > Am 13.07.23 um 16:41 schrieb Sean Paul: >> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 9:04?AM Uwe Kleine-K?nig >> <u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de> wrote: >>> >>> hello Sean, >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 02:31:02PM -0400, Sean Paul wrote: >>>> I'd really prefer this patch

I received two mails about faile to apply patches to 3.16-stable tree: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] virtio-rng: skip reading when we start to remove the device" failed to apply to 3.16-stable tree FAILED: patch "[PATCH] virtio-rng: fix stuck of hot-unplugging busy device" failed to apply to 3.16-stable tree Amit already backported two patches for 3.16-stable, then cherry-pick of my

I received two mails about faile to apply patches to 3.16-stable tree: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] virtio-rng: skip reading when we start to remove the device" failed to apply to 3.16-stable tree FAILED: patch "[PATCH] virtio-rng: fix stuck of hot-unplugging busy device" failed to apply to 3.16-stable tree Amit already backported two patches for 3.16-stable, then cherry-pick of my