Displaying 20 results from an estimated 4000 matches similar to: "IRC spam"
2020 Jun 16
4
IRC spam
On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 15:06, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> I also see little evidence that it would fix the problem of someone
> having too much time on their hand and wants to be a nuisance.
AFAICS, this is not the problem.
The nicks are clearly randomly generated by smashing words together
and the content seems to be what comes out of a
2020 Jun 26
4
IRC spam
I'll comment from the perspective of someone that is in the Mesa,
#dri-devel, #radeon channels myself and have watched their behaviour over
the years. This is a real person that spams a load of information into a
channel about their understanding of how hardware works.
I have no idea what their goal is for spamming this information, could be
some desire for acceptance from perceived smartness.
2007 Jan 26
6
has_many :through query question
I think this is obvious. but for some reason I''m not getting it.
Models: Bicycles, Accessories
Join Model: Upgrades
The idea is that you can upgrade your bike by adding an accessory, and
the upgrade price is often less than the accessory price would normally
be. So the Upgrades table has id, bicycle_id, accessory_id, and price.
class Bicycle
has_many :upgrades
has_many
2019 Nov 19
2
Fwd: RFC: Moving toward Discord and Discourse for LLVM's discussions
On 11/19/19 9:09 AM, Zachary Turner via llvm-dev wrote:
Note there is also Slack, which does not have these problems. Not sure why that keeps being overlooked
My understanding is this is because Slack does not have good moderation tools. I'm unfamiliar with further details in this regard.
-Hal
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 7:07 AM Zachary Turner <zturner at roblox.com<mailto:zturner at
2019 Nov 19
3
Fwd: RFC: Moving toward Discord and Discourse for LLVM's discussions
But is it better or worse than IRC in this regard?
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 10:49 PM Daniel Chapiesky via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Daniel Chapiesky <dchapiesky2 at gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 1:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Moving toward Discord and Discourse for
>
2019 Nov 19
2
RFC: Moving toward Discord and Discourse for LLVM's discussions
David,
I'm glad you mentioned Discord's T&Cs. I'm not generally concerned about these kinds of things, but Discord's seems particularly aggressive. Particularly the phrase "perpetual, nonexclusive, transferable, royalty-free, sublicensable, and worldwide license" is... a lot. Since LLVM is a permissively licensed project I assume many of our contributors care about
2019 Nov 18
3
RFC: Moving toward Discord and Discourse for LLVM's discussions
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 at 07:29, Kristina Brooks via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> While I understand the difficulty regarding mailing lists especially
> if one isn't used to setting up mailboxes and filters to classify and
> label emails and do think a web forum may be easier to use, I would
> have concerns over Discord. Unlike IRC which has a fairly open
2016 Apr 01
6
Clang project renamed
Hi everyone,
There are a number of issues with the current name of the Clang project:
* It is prone to incorrect type setting, typically as CLang, CLANG, or
most commonly c̦҉̫̘̺̹̖̗͒͆͋̈̃̇߯l߲҉̷̡̰̖͈̤̺͒҆̾̚͡͝a̺̹͍̔߭͠ͅn͋́͡g̱߫̉
* The C++ compiler ends in the string "g++", which causes problems for
compiler wrapper scripts
* The name has been used by a kickstarter project
2019 Nov 18
5
[cfe-dev] RFC: Moving toward Discord and Discourse for LLVM's discussions
FWIW I'm a fan of using open-source stuff for open-source projects.
Discourse looks open source, but Discord doesn't as far as I can tell (?).
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 3:15 AM Chandler Carruth via cfe-dev <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> I sent the message quoted below to llvm-dev@ just now, but it applies to
> the whole community so sending an FYI
2019 Nov 19
3
Fwd: RFC: Moving toward Discord and Discourse for LLVM's discussions
Slack's community moderation features are pretty terrible - it's simply
not set up for managing public-facing communities; it's set up for
managing private workplace team collaboration. The best way to try to
explain the features which are missing are to look at something like the
Matrix moderation guide (https://matrix.org/docs/guides/moderation/);
many of these features are
2019 Nov 18
3
RFC: Moving toward Discord and Discourse for LLVM's discussions
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 11:32 AM David Tellenbach via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> +1 from my side for using "faster" or "more direct" communication channels
> such
> as Discord (no strong opinion on the choice of any particular tool here)
> for
> informal chats and discussions on a "support level". This is
2019 Nov 18
2
RFC: Moving toward Discord and Discourse for LLVM's discussions
>
> | mailing lists for longer-form discussions are unfamiliar, difficult,
> and often intimidating for newcomers
>
> Um… what? While I know (via my own children) that folks nowadays use
> multiple avenues of communication, it’s **really** hard to imagine email
> as a **mechanism** being unfamiliar/difficult/intimidating. Moving to a
> new mechanism wouldn’t alter the
2019 Nov 20
4
[cfe-dev] RFC: Moving toward Discord and Discourse for LLVM's discussions
There *are* open-source Discord clients, 3rd party tools and the like. The
corporation behind Discord is just not authorising you legally to use any
of those tools at hand. There are rarely any technical barriers or
countermeasures, though.
Roman Lebedev via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> ezt írta (időpont: 2019.
nov. 18., H, 16:08):
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 4:10 PM Nico Weber via
2019 Nov 18
5
RFC: Moving toward Discord and Discourse for LLVM's discussions
The lists are working well for the people who are already invested in the
community though - as was identified by Chandler they aren't working as
well for new people.
I'm an insanely confident Scotsman with just about zero fear of any/all
social situations, and I've always found this mailing list to be utterly
terrifying (thus I've been a 10 year mostly-lurker).
My fear
2019 Nov 20
3
[cfe-dev] RFC: Moving toward Discord and Discourse for LLVM's discussions
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 12:18 PM Renato Golin <rengolin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 at 08:44, Whisperity via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > There *are* open-source Discord clients, 3rd party tools and the like.
>
> This is a big uphill fight that is rarelly worthy. Not to mention
> privacy guarantees and terms and conditions
2024 Apr 06
1
Rsync 3.3.0 released
I have released rsync version 3.3.0. This is a bug fix release, with the
increased version bump being a delayed reaction to some of the recent
larger changes that have happened.
To see a summary of all the recent changes, visit this link:
https://rsync.samba.org/ftp/rsync/NEWS#3.3.0
You can download the source tar file and its signature from here:
2024 Apr 06
1
Rsync 3.3.0 released
I have released rsync version 3.3.0. This is a bug fix release, with the
increased version bump being a delayed reaction to some of the recent
larger changes that have happened.
To see a summary of all the recent changes, visit this link:
https://rsync.samba.org/ftp/rsync/NEWS#3.3.0
You can download the source tar file and its signature from here:
2020 Aug 03
2
feature request: exclude from path
So I've gotten excluding paths to work as a standalone command. When I
paste this into a script however, it ignores the exclusions. Any advice?
rsync -aXvr --times --links
--exclude={'*.vdi','*.vmdk','*.ova','*.qcow2','.config/discord/'}
/home/path/ user at nas:/NAS/HOME/destination/
Are there supposed to be some kind of brackets around this?
2019 Nov 18
30
RFC: Moving toward Discord and Discourse for LLVM's discussions
Hello everyone,
*Short version:*I've set up an LLVM Discord server for real time chat
(similar to IRC) and an LLVM Discourse server for forums (similar to email
lists):
https://discord.gg/xS7Z362
https://llvm.discourse.group/
Please join and use these new services. They are only partially set up and
still very new, so don't hesitate to improve them and/or reach out to this
thread with
2020 Aug 04
2
Discourse category for the AMDGPU target
On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 7:00 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't have much personal interest here - but my understanding was
> that there was/is a fair bit of pushback to fragmenting the
> communications channels to discord before there's a more general
> buy-in to switch over across the project? (perhaps I'm misremembering
> the previous