---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/59335/#review175525
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Gautam Borad
On May 19, 2017, 1:33
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/59335/#review175523
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Colm O hEigeartaigh
On May 19, 2017,
> On May 19, 2017, 3:24 p.m., Velmurugan Periasamy wrote:
> > Ship It!
>
> Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
> Are the concerns I raised above addressed in the latest patch?
>
> Velmurugan Periasamy wrote:
> yes Colm, I see they are addressed.
>
> Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
> Hi Vel, I
> On May 19, 2017, 3:24 p.m., Velmurugan Periasamy wrote:
> > Ship It!
>
> Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
> Are the concerns I raised above addressed in the latest patch?
>
> Velmurugan Periasamy wrote:
> yes Colm, I see they are addressed.
>
> Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
> Hi Vel, I
> On May 19, 2017, 3:24 p.m., Velmurugan Periasamy wrote:
> > Ship It!
>
> Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
> Are the concerns I raised above addressed in the latest patch?
>
> Velmurugan Periasamy wrote:
> yes Colm, I see they are addressed.
>
> Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
> Hi Vel, I
> On May 19, 2017, 3:24 p.m., Velmurugan Periasamy wrote:
> > Ship It!
>
> Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
> Are the concerns I raised above addressed in the latest patch?
>
> Velmurugan Periasamy wrote:
> yes Colm, I see they are addressed.
Hi Vel, I still see a default iteration count of
> On May 19, 2017, 3:24 p.m., Velmurugan Periasamy wrote:
> > Ship It!
>
> Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
> Are the concerns I raised above addressed in the latest patch?
yes Colm, I see they are addressed.
- Velmurugan
---
This is an
> On May 19, 2017, 3:24 p.m., Velmurugan Periasamy wrote:
> > Ship It!
Are the concerns I raised above addressed in the latest patch?
- Colm
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/59335/#review175508
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Velmurugan Periasamy
On May 19, 2017,
> On May 17, 2017, 11:12 a.m., Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
> > Why is the iteration count now "17"?
>
> bhavik patel wrote:
> For previous version this iteration count was 17 so to support backwards
> compatibility we have kept this count as 17, once the upgrade is successful
> the user
> On May 17, 2017, 11:12 a.m., Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
> > Why is the iteration count now "17"?
>
> bhavik patel wrote:
> For previous version this iteration count was 17 so to support backwards
> compatibility we have kept this count as 17, once the upgrade is successful
> the user
> On May 17, 2017, 11:12 a.m., Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
> > Why is the iteration count now "17"?
For previous version this iteration count was 17 so to support backwards
compatibility we have kept this count as 17, once the upgrade is successful the
user can change the value in xml file.
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/59335/
---
Review request for ranger, Ankita Sinha, Gautam Borad, Abhay Kulkarni, Madhan
13 matches
Mail list logo