(note to Bart: we're in "voting mode" for release candidates on the
trunk right now. Which means no one should be touching trunk without
discussion -coders first please. Thanks!)
Bart already applied this patches which means:
1) if it doesn't get +3 it will be reverted
2) we need to decide if
(note to Bart: we're in "voting mode" for release candidates on the
trunk right now. Which means no one should be touching trunk without
discussion -coders first please. Thanks!)
Bart already applied this patches which means:
1) if it doesn't get +3 it will be reverted
2) we need to decide if
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Wes Hardaker <
harda...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>
> (note to Bart: we're in "voting mode" for release candidates on the
> trunk right now. Which means no one should be touching trunk without
> discussion -coders first please. Thanks!)
>
> Bart already appli
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>
> (note to Bart: we're in "voting mode" for release candidates on the
> trunk right now. Which means no one should be touching trunk without
> discussion -coders first please. Thanks!)
>
> Bart already applied this patches which means:
>
> 1
> On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 17:03:06 +0200, Bart Van Assche
> said:
BVA> This change is safe because this function is new and its "return value"
BVA> isn't used anywhere.
The safety of the change is now judged by the masses. We made this
policy quite a while ago because of changes that got in
> On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 17:01:49 +0200, Bart Van Assche
> said:
BVA> How many changes have you committed after rc1 and that did not get
BVA> a +3 ?
2. They had +2, though. So I took the "the release manager has thea
ability to make decisions" route because the due date for rc2 was immedi
> On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 02:01:22 +0200, Thomas Anders
> said:
TA> What about Robert's proposal to add a DEBUGMSG if the file/process
TA> went away?
New patches to review welcomed :-)
--
Wes Hardaker
Please mail all replies to net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net
---
> On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 03:17:37 +0200, Thomas Anders
> said:
TA> Wes Hardaker wrote:
>> (and I tested it to make sure the functionality works as expected)
TA> +1, then.
Ok, it didn't make it into rc2 because it didn't get +3 (and was
non-trivial). It'll get into rc3 if we do one then.
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Wes Hardaker <
harda...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> > On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 17:03:06 +0200, Bart Van Assche <
> bvanass...@acm.org> said:
>
> BVA> This change is safe because this function is new and its "return
> value"
> BVA> isn't used anywhere.
>
> The saf
Wes Hardaker wrote:
> However the patch gets +1 for me
+1 from me as well.
+Thomas
--
This SF.net Dev2Dev email is sponsored by:
Show off your parallel programming skills.
Enter the Intel(R) Threading Challenge 2010.
h
>
> Guys, good morning, how are you ?
>
> Sorry to jump on you like this, but I am having a problem I think you may
> know how to help me solving.
>
> I have a script, running on a remote server, as a daemon.
>
> And, sometimes, It crashes.
>
> Ok, so I use Nagios and SNMP to return the info when i
Hi!
I am trying to build net-snmp-5.5 on Windows-7 and am stuck at the point where
"netsnmpmibssdk" is to be built.
Build instructions that I followed are from
http://net-snmp.sourceforge.net/docs/README.win32.html --> "5. Build the
applications" --> "MS VC++ 7.0+:"
Projects libagent, libhelper
Hello, fellows.
I am monitoring some remote servers and I need to monitor some file systems
where my servers are mounted from.
I am using this object: hrFSRemoteMountPoint
My doubt is: Does it test the mount point or does it simply check if the
mount point is tested ?
That doubt is due to a pro
Hi,
There is a strange behavior with the SNMP walker, if I perform the following
command:
snmpwalk -One -v2c -c public "IP" 1.3.6.1.4.1.4491.2.1.20.1.23
I receive this answer:
.1.3.6.1.4.1.4491.2.1.20.1.23.1.2.536870914.256 = Hex-STRING: 01 02 03 04
.1.3.6.1.4.1.4491.2.1.20.1.2
On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 07:25:21PM +, Yehiel Samson wrote:
> There is a strange behavior with the SNMP walker, if I perform the following
> command:
>
> snmpwalk -One -v2c -c public "IP" 1.3.6.1.4.1.4491.2.1.20.1.23
>
> I receive this answer:
>
> .1.3.6.1.4.1.4491.2.1.20.1.23.1.2.536
Wes Hardaker wrote:
> However the patch gets +1 for me
+1 from me as well.
+Thomas
--
This SF.net Dev2Dev email is sponsored by:
Show off your parallel programming skills.
Enter the Intel(R) Threading Challenge 2010.
h
16 matches
Mail list logo
