similar to: Many open green PRs in NUT, wanna merge?

Hello all, Somewhat in relation to FOSDEM as a nice point on the calendar, and largely to address the lags we've had with publication of HCL and DDL information, and also as a side project of preparing for a new release (that should better list the currently known compatible hardware), the NUT website generation approach was changed. For the past years, https://networkupstools.org/ served

Hello all, Somewhat in relation to FOSDEM as a nice point on the calendar, and largely to address the lags we've had with publication of HCL and DDL information, and also as a side project of preparing for a new release (that should better list the currently known compatible hardware), the NUT website generation approach was changed. For the past years, https://networkupstools.org/ served

On June 11, 2017 8:58:11 AM GMT+02:00, Manuel Wolfshant <wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro> wrote: >On 10 June 2017 23:26:47 EEST, Tim Dawson <tadawson at tpcsvc.com> wrote: >>Build from source, and done . . . wasting your time looking for a less >>out of date RPM is pointless. . . RPM, .deb, etc are almost always >>downrev. . . >> >>- Tim >>

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 11:24 PM David Greene <greened at obbligato.org> wrote: > Christian Kühnel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > > >>> In Github pull requests there is always a git commit that you can just > >>> feed to the build server. And you can be sure of what really gets > merged. > >>> You review, build and test

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of > Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev > Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 10:40 AM > To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Require PRs for XFAILing tests > > On 10/3/2016 12:21 PM, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev wrote: > > As David Blaikie mentioned,

Hello LLVM-Dev, The other day as I was digging through lldb’s test suite I noticed they support something kinda neat. In their python test harness, the attribute they use to denote expected failures supports a parameter for specifying the bug number. This got me thinking. I believe that any test that is marked XFAIL is a bug, and we can use LIT to enforce that. So I wrote a patch

Thanks again for all the suggestions. For now I've prepared draft PRs, mostly to map out where the changes are needed - based on my earlier work with the originally proposed terminology. Now that we know where to change it, should not be too great a hassle to replace again by some other choice... subordinate was a bit too long to type :) To make the election of team choice more simple, I

Thanks again for all the suggestions. For now I've prepared draft PRs, mostly to map out where the changes are needed - based on my earlier work with the originally proposed terminology. Now that we know where to change it, should not be too great a hassle to replace again by some other choice... subordinate was a bit too long to type :) To make the election of team choice more simple, I

> -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Bradbury [mailto:asb at asbradbury.org] > Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2016 1:06 PM > To: Robinson, Paul > Cc: Renato Golin; Chris Bieneman; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Require PRs for XFAILing tests > > On 28 September 2016 at 19:58, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>

FYI: PR https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/pull/1328 adds handling of `PRIMARY` alias to `MASTER` on protocol side, hopefully completing the puzzle for issue #840. Reviews and testing would be welcome :) On Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 00:34 Jim Klimov <jimklimov+nut at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks again for all the suggestions. > > For now I've prepared draft PRs, mostly to map out

FYI: PR https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/pull/1328 adds handling of `PRIMARY` alias to `MASTER` on protocol side, hopefully completing the puzzle for issue #840. Reviews and testing would be welcome :) On Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 00:34 Jim Klimov <jimklimov+nut at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks again for all the suggestions. > > For now I've prepared draft PRs, mostly to map out

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 19:10, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > Can you point to examples of that - where Phab links have been used to express non-mechanically-dependent patches? Not at the top of my head, but since that's not what we're talking about, I'll go to the next point. > Approval order isn't commit order - I'm more than happy to approve a

> On Feb 20, 2020, at 14:25, Johannes Doerfert <johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 02/20, Louis Dionne via llvm-dev wrote: >> I know there has been significant discussion about "moving" from >> Phabricator to GitHub reviews and pull requests, etc. I'm not >> suggesting that we do anything in terms of global LLVM policy. >> However, as

> On Sep 29, 2016, at 7:52 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:58 AM Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > On 28 September 2016 at 10:08, Chris Bieneman via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>

There is already 10 PRs sent to GitHub repo. But they all are useless, in every PR people are being informed that they should send patches to http://reviews.llvm.org/

Hello all, As some people watching GitHub closely might have noticed, the majority of proposed changes (for primary/secondary in the end) were merged around weekend. This impacts text documentation and keyword support for upsmon configuration, testing welcome :) Some work remains for image files in documentation, and the protocol/ABI were not touched so far. Following the recent eminent

Hello all, As some people watching GitHub closely might have noticed, the majority of proposed changes (for primary/secondary in the end) were merged around weekend. This impacts text documentation and keyword support for upsmon configuration, testing welcome :) Some work remains for image files in documentation, and the protocol/ABI were not touched so far. Following the recent eminent

> On Mar 3, 2020, at 17:16, Shoaib Meenai <smeenai at fb.com> wrote: > > `arc patch` should preserve the author information in the original commit, if there was any. At least it has in my experience. Yes, but I think people can upload raw patches to Phabricator without using `arc diff`. I know I ran into one of these just last week where I used Johannes' script (thanks!) and

It sounds like we need to get someone from the Foundation (chandlerc@, lattner@, tanya@, someone else?) to reach out to them offline about this. On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 11:23 AM Arthur O'Dwyer <arthur.j.odwyer at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 2:19 PM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev < > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On 03/20/2019 10:41 AM, Zachary

Hi, > Since NUT is guessing, is there a way to make it list likely drivers back to the user when they are a close match and check validity for each one until it gets a good connection? Part of auto select? What NUT currently does in `usbhid-ups` (some other drivers may handle similar stuff differently), is it goes through a list of subdrivers built into the binary and calls those