At 1244414696 time_t, Koncz László wrote:
I've been using the awesome Awesome WM on Arch Linux (a git snapshot
packaged as 3.3pre by an Arch User Community contributor), until about
a week ago it wouldn't start any more. I've upgraded to 3.3 since, but
the problem persists: awesome crashes
At 1244462897 time_t, Andrei Thorp wrote:
(and is it possible to make the mailing list software properly set
reply-to so the reply button sends back to the ml? Is it just me
struggling with this?)
No. See http://liw.iki.fi/liw/log/2003-Enemies-of-Carlotta.html.
Any good MUA has a reply to list
No. See http://liw.iki.fi/liw/log/2003-Enemies-of-Carlotta.html.
Any good MUA has a reply to list ('l' in mutt) anyway. :)
Read the post -- reasoning is kind of weak in the two points they
make, but acceptable enough, I suppose.
Shame that gmail doesn't support reply-to-list though.
-AT
--
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 9:00 AM,
Guerrier-cachalotguerrier.cacha...@gmail.com wrote:
Can I know what your memory ?
Else, you've convinced me .
I have 3 GB of memory in this machine, but according to
gnome-system-monitor, that 0.3% is 3.6 MB. Gnome-system-monitor itself
is reporting 4.6 MB for
On 08/06/09 06:04, Andrei Thorp wrote:
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 4:43 PM,
Guerrier-cachalotguerrier.cacha...@gmail.com wrote:
And the speed ?? And the memory footprint ?? Ô developpers of Awesome, don't
make this awful mistake. If you want a WM entirely written in hig-level
langage, rewrite
Yeah, no. Also, please facts rather than speculation.
2009/6/8 Ángel Alonso fe...@archlinux.us:
On 08/06/09 06:04, Andrei Thorp wrote:
Lua's actually one of the best-performing scripting languages out
there, actually much faster than Python.
I don't think so.
Also, we're not exactly doing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Julien Danjou wrote:
At 1244394267 time_t, Uli Schlachter wrote:
Hm, perhabs... update() checks for larger than or equal to 0 already, but
I'm
not really sure what should be done about less than or equal to 1. Check
for
'scale' in
[...] Can you try to recompile with more debug symbols? [...]
This is somewhat embarrassing, but the whole issue completely
disappeared as soon as I recompiled libev for debugging.
Consecutively I can't give a more detailed debugging output because
the problem is gone now :)
Thanks
--
Koncz
