Bid Writing Workshops - Now Via Zoom
NFP WORKSHOPS 18 Blake Street, York YO1 8QG Affordable Training Courses for Charities, Schools & Public Sector Organisations This email has been sent to haproxy@formilux.org CLICK TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM LIST Alternatively send a blank e-mail to unsubscr...@nfpmail1902.co.uk quoting haproxy@formilux.org in the subject line. Unsubscribe requests will take effect within seven days. Bid Writing: The Basics Online via ZOOM START 13.30 FINISH 16.00 COST £95.00 TOPICS COVERED Do you know the most common reasons for rejection? Are you gathering the right evidence? Are you making the right arguments? Are you using the right terminology? Are your numbers right? Are you learning from rejections? Are you assembling the right documents? Do you know how to create a clear and concise standard funding bid? Are you communicating with people or just excluding them? Do you know your own organisation well enough? Are you thinking through your projects carefully enough? Do you know enough about your competitors? Are you answering the questions funders will ask themselves about your application? Are you submitting applications correctly? PARTICIPANTS Staff members, volunteers, trustees or board members of charities, schools, not for profits or public sector organisations who intend to submit grant funding applications to charitable grant making trusts and foundations. People who provide advice to these organisations are also welcome. BOOKING DETAILS Participants receive full notes and sample bids by e-mail after the workshop. The workshop consists of talk, questions and answers. There are no power points or audio visuals used. All places must be booked through the online booking system using a debit card, credit card or paypal. We do not issue invoices or accept bank or cheque payments. If you do not have a payment card from your organisation please use a personal one and claim reimbursement using the booking confirmation e-mail as proof of purchase. BOOKING TERMS Workshop bookings are non-cancellable and non-refundable. If you are unable to participate on the booked date you may allow someone else to log on in your place. There is no need to contact us to let us know that there will be a different participant. Bookings are non-transferable between dates unless an event is postponed. If an event is postponed then bookings will be valid on any future scheduled date for that workshop. QUESTIONS If you have a question please e-mail questi...@nfpmail1902.co.uk You will usually receive a response within 24 hours. Due to our training commitments we are unable to accept questions by phone. Bid Writing: Advanced Online via ZOOM START 13.30 FINISH 16.00 COST £95.00 TOPICS COVERED Are you applying to the right trusts? Are you applying to enough trusts? Are you asking for the right amount of money? Are you applying in the right ways? Are your projects the most fundable projects? Are you carrying out trust fundraising in a professional way? Are you delegating enough work? Are you highly productive or just very busy? Are you looking for trusts in all the right places? How do you compare with your competitors for funding? Is the rest of your fundraising hampering your bids to trusts? Do you understand what trusts are ideally looking for? PARTICIPANTS Staff members, volunteers, trustees or board members of charities, schools, not for profits or public sector organisations who intend to submit grant funding applications to charitable grant making trusts and foundations. People who provide advice to these organisations are also welcome. BOOKING DETAILS Participants receive full notes and sample bids by e-mail after the workshop. The workshop consists of talk, questions and answers. There are no power points or audio visuals used. All places must be booked through the online booking system using a debit card, credit card or paypal. We do not issue invoices or accept bank or cheque payments. If you do not have a payment card from your organisation please use a personal one and claim reimbursement using the booking confirmation e-mail as proof of purchase. BOOKING TERMS Workshop bookings are non-cancellable and non-refundable. If you are unable to participate on the booked date you may allow someone else to log on in your place. There is no need to contact us to let us know that there will be a different participant. Bookings are non-transferable between dates unless an event is postponed. If an event is postponed then bookings will be valid on any future scheduled date for that workshop. QUESTIONS If you have a question please e-mail questi...@nfpmail1902.co.uk You will usually receive a response within 24 hours. Due to our training commitments we are unable to accept questions by phone. Dates & Booking Links BID WRITING: THE BASICS Mon 15 Jun 2020Booking Link Mon 29 Jun 2020Booking Link Mon 13 Jul 2020Booking Link Mon 27 Jul 2020Booking
stable-bot: Bugfixes waiting for a release 2.1 (4)
Hi, This is a friendly bot that watches fixes pending for the next haproxy-stable release! One such e-mail is sent periodically once patches are waiting in the last maintenance branch, and an ideal release date is computed based on the severity of these fixes and their merge date. Responses to this mail must be sent to the mailing list. Last release 2.1.7 was issued on 2020-06-09. There are currently 4 patches in the queue cut down this way: - 3 MEDIUM, first one merged on 2020-06-12 - 1 MINOR, first one merged on 2020-06-12 Thus the computed ideal release date for 2.1.8 would be 2020-07-10, which is in four weeks or less. The current list of patches in the queue is: - 2.1 - MEDIUM : ssl: crt-list must continue parsing on ERR_WARN - 2.1 - MEDIUM : log: don't hold the log lock during writev() on a file descriptor - 2.1 - MEDIUM : pattern: fix thread safety of pattern matching - 2.1 - MINOR : ssl: fix ssl-{min,max}-ver with openssl < 1.1.0 -- The haproxy stable-bot is freely provided by HAProxy Technologies to help improve the quality of each HAProxy release. If you have any issue with these emails or if you want to suggest some improvements, please post them on the list so that the solutions suiting the most users can be found.
Re: [PATCH] BUG/MINOR: cfgparse: Add missing fatal++ in PARSE_ERR_HEX case
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 06:14:21PM +0200, Tim Duesterhus wrote: > This fixes up commit 32234e751320b60a3879f274d4a4753d7570e757. This > patch should be backported whereever that commit is backported. Ah good catch, thank you Tim! I was worried that some deeper functions were missing the ERR_FATAL flag, which is still possible but at least that mistake from me is easier to address! Willy
[PATCH] BUG/MINOR: cfgparse: Add missing fatal++ in PARSE_ERR_HEX case
This fixes up commit 32234e751320b60a3879f274d4a4753d7570e757. This patch should be backported whereever that commit is backported. --- src/cfgparse.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/src/cfgparse.c b/src/cfgparse.c index 9f44c7566..fdbf3a406 100644 --- a/src/cfgparse.c +++ b/src/cfgparse.c @@ -1955,6 +1955,7 @@ next_line: ha_alert("parsing [%s:%d]: truncated or invalid hexadecimal sequence below:\n" " %s\n %*s\n", file, linenum, line, (int)(errptr-line+1), "^"); err_code |= ERR_ALERT | ERR_FATAL; + fatal++; goto next_line; } -- 2.27.0
Re: VTest does not test deinit
William, Am 16.06.20 um 11:27 schrieb William Lallemand: >> Actually we must always remember that while convenient, VTest's >> primary goal is to test a proxy by synchronizing the two sides (which >> is what basically no other testing tool can reliably do). If we want >> to run deeper tests on other process-oriented behaviors, it can make >> sense to rely on other tools. For example vtest is not the best suited >> to testing command line or process stability. It has no process >> management, can leak background processes and needs to wait for a >> timeout to detect a crash. >> >> My point above is that as long as *proxy* tests are compatible with >> stopping using SIGUSR1 I think I'd be fine with the change. But if >> doing this actually results in more pain to test the proxy features, >> I'd rather stay away from this and switch to a distinct test series >> for this. That's where I'd draw the line. >> > > I think that's a good idea but It will probably because it will let us > test the deinit() with all the diversity of configuration we have in the > reg-tests. Yes, that was the intention behind my suggestion. The reg-tests already test various configurations during regular operation. It should be easy enough to also test a clean deinit() for those configurations by using SIGUSR1 instead of SIGINT. I don't expect any major issues with the normal testing operation, because the deinit() happens after the regular proxy tests finished. And a buggy deinit() still is a bug. > But I also agree with Willy and we should be careful about the > consequences of this change. If there is too much changes to handle it > may be painful to do it before the 2.2 release. > I'd definitely postpone changing anything about VTest past 2.2. Any bugs found using that will be backported anyway. So nothing really lost by waiting for the release. Best regards Tim Düsterhus
Re: VTest does not test deinit
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 07:00:55PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > Hi Tim, > > On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 06:24:19PM +0200, Tim Düsterhus wrote: > > Hi List, > > Willy, > > Ilya, > > > > I noticed that the reg-tests were unable find the issue reported by > > William here: > > https://www.mail-archive.com/haproxy@formilux.org/msg37637.html > > > > This is because VTest never performs a "soft" shutdown of HAProxy, > > instead it uses SIGINT -> SIGTERM -> SIGKILL. Thus the deinit() will > > never trigger. > > > > Fixing this will require a change to VTest: > > https://github.com/vtest/VTest/blob/b9e9e03fdeebd494783ae1dd8e6008f5c1e3a4bc/src/vtc_haproxy.c#L786 > > needs to be SIGUSR1 (and the switch below adjusted). > > > > Making the change in my local repository and running the tests that > > don't need any additional USE_XXX falgs causes 3 tests to fail with 2 of > > them triggering an assertion within VTest. > > > > It would have caught the bug reported by William, though. > > > > Concluding: It probably makes sense to adjust VTest to use SIGUSR1 > > instead of SIGINT, the latter is handled like SIGTERM in HAProxy anyway, > > so there is no need for this distinction. I did not yet look into the > > details of the failing tests, though. > > It *could* be a solution, I don't know if it may have other impacts. > > Actually we must always remember that while convenient, VTest's > primary goal is to test a proxy by synchronizing the two sides (which > is what basically no other testing tool can reliably do). If we want > to run deeper tests on other process-oriented behaviors, it can make > sense to rely on other tools. For example vtest is not the best suited > to testing command line or process stability. It has no process > management, can leak background processes and needs to wait for a > timeout to detect a crash. > > My point above is that as long as *proxy* tests are compatible with > stopping using SIGUSR1 I think I'd be fine with the change. But if > doing this actually results in more pain to test the proxy features, > I'd rather stay away from this and switch to a distinct test series > for this. That's where I'd draw the line. > I think that's a good idea but It will probably because it will let us test the deinit() with all the diversity of configuration we have in the reg-tests. But I also agree with Willy and we should be careful about the consequences of this change. If there is too much changes to handle it may be painful to do it before the 2.2 release. -- William Lallemand