On Sunday 10 January 2010 23:12:48 Dan Langille wrote:
> Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > PS: The resolution codes are still screwed up in Mantis -- @100@ and
> > @101@ -- pretty annoying ...
>
> Fixed. I create a new bug to test it. Closed it right away. It was
> marked private.
Thanks.
-
Kern Sibbald wrote:
> As I said, I am not particularly happy with the idea that a manual pool
> specification overrides everything, but at the same time, the current
> behavior is confusing, and I don't have a better idea. This is not really a
> but, but if someone (probably Phil) would submit
Kern Sibbald wrote:
> PS: The resolution codes are still screwed up in Mantis -- @100@ and
> @101@ -- pretty annoying ...
Fixed. I create a new bug to test it. Closed it right away. It was
marked private.
--
This S
Kern Sibbald wrote:
> On Sunday 10 January 2010 14:00:22 Dan Langille wrote:
>> Kern Sibbald wrote:
>>> On Sunday 10 January 2010 03:31:43 Dan Langille wrote:
I am seeing a number of interesting notices during regression testing.
Should we be concerned?
> Logcheck system acc
Le dimanche 10 janvier 2010 19:19:13, Dan Langille a écrit :
> Eric Bollengier wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Le mardi 05 janvier 2010 14:53:42, Holger Mueller a écrit :
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> is it possible to modify the sql query to get alphabetical
> >> order of clients when selecting the most recent bac
On Sun, 2010-01-10 at 13:19 -0500, Dan Langille wrote:
> Eric Bollengier wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Le mardi 05 janvier 2010 14:53:42, Holger Mueller a écrit :
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> is it possible to modify the sql query to get alphabetical
> >> order of clients when selecting the most recent backup f
Eric Bollengier wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Le mardi 05 janvier 2010 14:53:42, Holger Mueller a écrit :
>> Hi,
>>
>> is it possible to modify the sql query to get alphabetical
>> order of clients when selecting the most recent backup for a client?
>
> In other menus, the list is displayed in the same ord
On Sunday 10 January 2010 14:00:22 Dan Langille wrote:
> Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > On Sunday 10 January 2010 03:31:43 Dan Langille wrote:
> >> I am seeing a number of interesting notices during regression testing.
> >>
> >> Should we be concerned?
> >>
> >>> Logcheck system account wrote:
> Secu
Kern Sibbald wrote:
> On Sunday 10 January 2010 03:31:43 Dan Langille wrote:
>> I am seeing a number of interesting notices during regression testing.
>>
>> Should we be concerned?
>>
>>> Logcheck system account wrote:
Security Events
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Jan 9 16:02:05 dbclone postgres[
On Sunday 10 January 2010 11:10:59 Ralf Gross wrote:
> Phil Stracchino schrieb:
> > > ...
> > > I am not even sure how one might go about
> > > resolving the problem:
> > >
> > > 1. Make manually overriding the Pool when starting a Job take
> > > precedence over all other Pool specifications? I d
Phil Stracchino schrieb:
> > ...
> > I am not even sure how one might go about
> > resolving the problem:
> >
> > 1. Make manually overriding the Pool when starting a Job take precedence
> > over
> > all other Pool specifications? I don't particularly like that idea.
>
> It seems to be to be
On Sunday 10 January 2010 03:31:43 Dan Langille wrote:
> I am seeing a number of interesting notices during regression testing.
>
> Should we be concerned?
>
> > Logcheck system account wrote:
> >> Security Events
> >> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> >> Jan 9 16:02:05 dbclone postgres[82038]: [2-1] ERROR: must
12 matches
Mail list logo
