similar to: [LLVMdev] Buildbot skipping commits?

That would explain it. The commit messages were quite long (especially the second one) and a commit with a smaller message has shown up. Thanks for letting me know. I'll try to keep them a bit more reasonable in future. > -----Original Message----- > From: NAKAMURA Takumi [mailto:geek4civic at gmail.com] > Sent: 15 November 2013 16:28 > To: Daniel Sanders > Cc: LLVM Developers

Ah, ...no. please don't hesitate to write logs ;) It must be the subject in the buildbot, not in developer guys. Galina, I'll write up later, how to tweak this issue. It is not resolved in released versions, though. The easiest way is to tweak svnpoller. 2013/11/16 Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com>: > That would explain it. The commit messages were quite long

It's a bug in buildbot. Longer (than 1024, I guess) commit message might let buildbot commits ignored. When buildbot is configured with mysql, such a check is done. FYI, my buildbot tweaks longer commit log, for example; http://bb.pgr.jp/changes/24995 (Snipping is done not in the buildmaster, but on the commit feeder) That said, I wish every guys would not be made afraid of commit message...

> On 02 August 2018 at 16:22 Henrik Larsson <dovecot-user at spambox.dk> wrote: > > > On 02-08-2018 15:16, Aki Tuomi wrote: > >> On 02 August 2018 at 16:08 Henrik Larsson <dovecot-user at spambox.dk> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 15-07-2018 11:42, Henrik Larsson wrote: > >> > After upgrading Dovecot to 2.3.2.1

Just brainstorming here, but what if each CODE_OWNER maintained a spork on Github and accepted Pull Requests? What's a spork, you ask? Well it's fork with no intent to diverge - it spoons some centralized repo (be it via git or git-svn). If you haven't heard the term 'spork' in this context before, it's either because I just made it up or that we share the same

I know there''s a problem saving has_and_belongs_to_many relationships w/ Rails 1.0 in that only the first association is saved (http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/3213). What are people doing about this? I guess I could move to using the trunk release, but I''m hesitant because that might introduce a bunch of unknowns. Is there a workaround? For example, a way to explicitly

The Wine development release 1.9.23 is now available. What's new in this release (see below for details): - HID bus support for macOS. - Color font support in Direct2D. - More color formats in Direct3D. - Uninstallation fixes in MSI. - Various bug fixes. The source is available from the following locations: http://dl.winehq.org/wine/source/1.9/wine-1.9.23.tar.bz2

The Wine maintenance release 3.0.4 is now available. What's new in this release (see below for details): - Added a lot of icons in Shell32 - Various bug fixes The source is available from the following locations: https://dl.winehq.org/wine/source/3.0/wine-3.0.4.tar.xz http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/wine/source/3.0/wine-3.0.4.tar.xz Binary packages for various distributions will be

The Wine maintenance release 3.0.5 is now available. What's new in this release (see below for details): - Various bug fixes The source is available from the following locations: https://dl.winehq.org/wine/source/3.0/wine-3.0.5.tar.xz http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/wine/source/3.0/wine-3.0.5.tar.xz Binary packages for various distributions will be available from:

The Wine development release 3.16 is now available. What's new in this release (see below for details): - Initial implementation of OPC Services. - Support for rendering buttons from an ImageList. - Better support for CSS properties in MSHTML. - Namespace fixes in XML Writer. - Various bug fixes. The source is available from the following locations:

The Wine development release 3.17 is now available. What's new in this release (see below for details): - Improved Shell Autocomplete support. - More implementation of OPC Services. - Improvements to the Pager common control. - Various bug fixes. The source is available from the following locations: https://dl.winehq.org/wine/source/3.x/wine-3.17.tar.xz

Hai,   Just a questions, this might be a bug, might not, but for this one i need some help.   Setup, debian 9.   Member server samba 4.9.3 AD DC servers samba 4.8.7   Im setting up the member with a very tight firewall, so nothing in/our/routed unless its defined. Im using UFW firewall for it.   I notice the following in my member its firewall logs, and this only happend when i run : id or

Kirtland Air Force Base has denied approval for the use of R on its Windows network. Some of their objections seem a bit strange, but some appear to be legitimate. In particular, they have detected registry "vulnerabilities" which are detailed in the attachment. I know nothing about Windows registry vulnerabilities. If any of these issues are legitimate concerns,