On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 10:02:18 +0200 Timo wrote:
TT As you can see on the tracker I've had a look at this patch. I stopped
TT however because I'm not convinced that the introduction of the new flag
TT NETSNMP_CACHE_AUTO_SYNCHRONIZED is justified.
TT
TT I added some more explanation now why it's
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 17:25:51 +0200 Timo wrote:
TT I think the concept you are talking about for the cache is ok, but I'm not
TT sure that auto-sychronized is the right name. It's more of a keep-alive,
isn't
TT it? simply bumping the expiration time when the cache is used?
TT
TT Correct. The
On 03/16/2011 07:49 PM, Robert Story wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 17:25:51 +0200 Timo wrote:
TT I think the concept you are talking about for the cache is ok, but I'm
not
TT sure that auto-sychronized is the right name. It's more of a
keep-alive, isn't
TT it? simply bumping the expiration
On 03/11/2011 07:24 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
2011/3/4 Wes Hardaker harda...@users.sourceforge.net
mailto:harda...@users.sourceforge.net
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 07:54:10 +0200, Timo Teräs
timo.te...@iki.fi mailto:timo.te...@iki.fi said:
TT What's the usual time frame for getting
2011/3/4 Wes Hardaker harda...@users.sourceforge.net
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 07:54:10 +0200, Timo Teräs timo.te...@iki.fi
said:
TT What's the usual time frame for getting patches reviewed and committed?
TT Could someone take a look at this?
It's actually on my todo list to go review the
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 07:54:10 +0200, Timo Teräs timo.te...@iki.fi said:
TT What's the usual time frame for getting patches reviewed and committed?
TT Could someone take a look at this?
It's actually on my todo list to go review the patches. They're always
reviewed before the next release, and I
Hi all,
It's been several months since I posted my patch at:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailaid=3123596group_id=12694atid=312694
What's the usual time frame for getting patches reviewed and committed?
Could someone take a look at this?
Thanks,
Timo
