Hi all,
Because there is not prototypic declaration, in the top of the source of glue,
I cannot compile it.
diff -r 7d9a54d5da6c main.c
--- a/main.cFri Jun 17 18:34:21 2011 +0900
+++ b/main.cFri Jun 17 18:34:55 2011 +0900
@@ -78,6 +78,7 @@
void log_buf(int severity, char *buf);
void lo
On 06/16/2011 02:51 AM, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 09:48:20AM +0200, Florian Haas wrote:
>> On 2011-06-16 09:03, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
>>> With the current "unique=true/false", you cannot express that.
>> Thanks. You learn something every day. :)
> Sorry that I left off the "As
Hi,
I pushed the RA to the repository. Just changed the meta-data a
bit to mention the default for the name parameter and removed
the check for probe before check_binary (it is not necessary in
this case).
Many thanks for the contribution!
Cheers,
Dejan
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 04:34:54PM +0200
Dejan Muhamedagic schrieb am 15.06.2011 15:40:21:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 07:15:21PM +0200, alexander.kra...@basf.com
wrote:
> > Dejan Muhamedagic schrieb am 08.06.2011 18:32:16:
> > > Hi Alexander,
> > > On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 05:42:30PM +0200, alexander.kra...@basf.com
> > wrote:
> > > > Dej
About two month ago, dealing with a bug report of some paying customer,
I fixed some long standing bugs in the heartbeat communication layer
that caused heartbeat to segfault, and other bad behaviour.
These bugs where triggered by "misbehaving" API clients,
respectively massive packet loss on the
On 2011-06-16 10:51, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 09:48:20AM +0200, Florian Haas wrote:
>> On 2011-06-16 09:03, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
>>> With the current "unique=true/false", you cannot express that.
>>
>> Thanks. You learn something every day. :)
>
> Sorry that I left off the
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 09:48:20AM +0200, Florian Haas wrote:
> On 2011-06-16 09:03, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> > With the current "unique=true/false", you cannot express that.
>
> Thanks. You learn something every day. :)
Sorry that I left off the "As you are well aware of,"
introductionary phrase.
On 2011-06-16 09:03, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> With the current "unique=true/false", you cannot express that.
Thanks. You learn something every day. :)
> Depending on what we chose the meaning to be,
> parameters marked "unique=true" would be required to
> either be all _independently_ unique,
>
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 04:07:27PM +0200, Florian Haas wrote:
> On 2011-06-15 15:50, Alan Robertson wrote:
> > On 06/14/2011 06:03 AM, Florian Haas wrote:
> >> On 2011-06-14 13:08, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> >>> Hi Alan,
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:32:02AM -0600, Alan Robertson wrote:
>
