On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 12:05:38PM +0100, Alan Brown wrote:
> In any case it is _unlikely_ that it will make any appearance in 1.38 at
> all unless someone backports it.
> My coding skills are lousy. I'm prepared to wait.
I wasn't pushing for a fix. I've already patched the local message. I jus
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Dan Langille wrote:
> Jo, quite simply, you are a damn pain in the ass. If a developer
> does not want to do the fix, there's nothing you can do. Leave it
> alone.
I've had this in as a _polite_ request to Kern for a couple of weeks, and
there's a feature request filed for
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Jo Rhett wrote:
>> In the case of mismatched file daemons it's easy enough to work out which
>> one is playing up by running "status client" on each one.
>
> Nope. No configuration changes since I got that message, and no repeats of
> the message. "status client" worked on e
On Aug 2, 2006, at 11:58 AM, Dan Langille wrote:
> You still have a way to go. Keep at it. You have a lot of ground to
> make up. You made your bed, etc... it'll take a while for people to
> adjust to the new you.
It's not a new me. I never was insulting to anyone who didn't start
in on me f
On 2 Aug 2006 at 11:55, Jo Rhett wrote:
> > On 2 Aug 2006 at 11:44, Jo Rhett wrote:
> >> What's the chance you'll stop with the personal attacks?
>
> On Aug 2, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Dan Langille wrote:
> > What's the chance that you'll realise you're the problem?
> >
> > Please, if one person tells
> On 2 Aug 2006 at 11:44, Jo Rhett wrote:
>> What's the chance you'll stop with the personal attacks?
On Aug 2, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Dan Langille wrote:
> What's the chance that you'll realise you're the problem?
>
> Please, if one person tells you that you're a problem, ignore them.
> If several sa
On Aug 2, 2006, at 11:46 AM, R.I. Pienaar wrote:
> I understand, but I don't think youre incredibly attacking and bashing
> attitude is going to make anyone eager to actually do the 5 minutes of
> work, so I guess you're left with the 5 hours option.
I was neither attacking nor bashing. I reporte
On 2 Aug 2006 at 11:44, Jo Rhett wrote:
> On Aug 2, 2006, at 11:36 AM, Dan Langille wrote:
> > Jo, quite simply, you are a damn pain in the ass. If a developer
> > does not want to do the fix, there's nothing you can do. Leave it
> > alone.
>
> The developer didn't suggest that as a fix, someon
On 02/08/06, Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's think about effort versus reward:
>
> 1. Fix to include the FD in question in the log : 5 minutes to write,
> perhaps even less.
>
> 2. Change the logging on every system
> -AND-
> Every time I see this error, send a message out t
On Aug 2, 2006, at 11:36 AM, Dan Langille wrote:
> Jo, quite simply, you are a damn pain in the ass. If a developer
> does not want to do the fix, there's nothing you can do. Leave it
> alone.
The developer didn't suggest that as a fix, someone else did. I
politely replied to let him/her know
On 2 Aug 2006 at 11:32, Jo Rhett wrote:
> Let's think about effort versus reward:
>
> 1. Fix to include the FD in question in the log : 5 minutes to write,
> perhaps even less.
>
> 2. Change the logging on every system
> -AND-
> Every time I see this error, send a message out to ever
Let's think about effort versus reward:
1. Fix to include the FD in question in the log : 5 minutes to write,
perhaps even less.
2. Change the logging on every system
-AND-
Every time I see this error, send a message out to every team
with servers to administer and ask them if the
>>> Can we get it fixed?
> On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Kern Sibbald wrote:
>> If it isn't already fixed, then it will be some time unless
>> someone sends a
>> patch since it is not on the top of my priority list which is
>> already too
>> long. Generally one knows exactly which daemon you are dealing
On Aug 1, 2006, at 5:48 PM, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> long. Generally one knows exactly which daemon you are dealing with
> from the
> context unless you are driving the console with a script.
These messages were e-mailed to me. No other context is provided.
Message settings at default / standar
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, R.I. Pienaar wrote:
> it's not optimal
Indeed: Multiple concurrent jobs on the same FD are still not easily
distinguishable.
> but you can get each FD to write a log on its own box
> by adding an append directive to its messages settings.
--
hello,
it's not optimal but you can get each FD to write a log on its own box
by adding an append directive to its messages settings.
On 02/08/06, Alan Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Kern Sibbald wrote:
>
> >> Kern, is this fixed in a newer version?
> >
> > I believe more
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Kern Sibbald wrote:
>> Kern, is this fixed in a newer version?
>
> I believe more information is printed in 1.39.x, but there are so many changes
> that I cannot remember the exact case that was enhanced.
>
>> Can we get it fixed?
>
> If it isn't already fixed, then it will be
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 02:25, Jo Rhett wrote:
> This will be my third time posting this.
I don't answer all message on this list but generally take note of them.
> Kern, is this fixed in a newer version?
I believe more information is printed in 1.39.x, but there are so many changes
t
This will be my third time posting this. Kern, is this fixed in a
newer version? Can we get it fixed?
On Jul 28, 2006, at 10:01 AM, Jo Rhett wrote:
> I haven't the foggiest idea which File Daemons it was unable to
> communicate with. Can we please expand the error message to include
> this in
19 matches
Mail list logo
