Sounds good to me, we've been running a snapshot of master in production which
fixed a bunch of windows issues. I'll review some of the pull requests, I know
I was looking at one regarding the Windows search domains earlier. Otherwise
I think master is in pretty good shape.
-Brad
On 05/23/2017
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 4:32 AM, Daniel Stenberg dan...@haxx.se wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009, John Engelhart wrote:
And, hypothetically speaking, if someone were to re-work the code, could
you provide feedback on whether or not the new code works?
Of course! I certainly wouldn't mind seeing
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 4:32 AM, Daniel Stenberg dan...@haxx.se wrote:
Your 0+0 case is problematic only if it *repeatedly* returns 0 so that the
program goes into a busy-loop and that is the problem: the repeated returns
of run now, not the run now when it happens only once. And repeated
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009, John Engelhart wrote:
I'd suggest adding to the documentation an example work loop geared towards
long running applications, such as one where a background thread is ticked
off to just process ares_* stuff.
If you write up an example, I'm sure we can fit it somewhere.
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 6:37 AM, Steinar H. Gunderson se...@google.comwrote:
FWIW, if you're talking about the hash of doubly-linked lists, it was
indeed
added after profiling real-world performance problems here at Google. I
don't
know the specifics (I only forward-ported it from our
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
- From my very selfish POV, I'd like the c-ares-$NEXT to contain the SRV
(already in HEAD, but the concerns raised during the TXT patch review over
renaming global structures should happen before release) and TXT parsing
routines.
Right, since the
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009, John Engelhart wrote:
And, hypothetically speaking, if someone were to re-work the code, could you
provide feedback on whether or not the new code works?
Of course! I certainly wouldn't mind seeing a cleanup and improved time-out
code, and of course I'd review and test
to these linked lists, though?
And, hypothetically speaking, if someone were to re-work the code, could you
provide feedback on whether or not the new code works?
I'm pretty sure that would be after-the-fact, unfortunately, as in -- at each
new release I import the new version into our local repository
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 08:43:22PM -0400, John Engelhart wrote:
While I agree a linear scan of the queue isn't the most efficient means, it
is the easiest. Even with hundreds of packets in an unsorted linked list,
just how much time is really spent running through the queue, anyways? Did
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, John Engelhart wrote:
Regardless, I really think that there should be some kind of minimum floor
returned instead of 0/0. Even with a minimum of 1000 microseconds (1
millisecond), that's 1000 times per second. Is there really a need to make
an attempt with such
c-ares upstream plan a new release to facilitate the
changes since 1.6.0?
I'm all for doing a release. It's really not that much work.
Great, thank you!
Let's work on getting the relevant patches applied, then give a few days
for everything to settle and then release!
So are there any
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
I know there had been a similar question asked by Daniel a couple of
months back, but since then, some other patches landed..so I wanted to
ask again - does c-ares upstream plan a new release to facilitate the
changes since 1.6.0?
We
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
I know there had been a similar question asked by Daniel a couple of months
back, but since then, some other patches landed..so I wanted to ask again -
does c-ares upstream plan a new release to facilitate the changes since
1.6.0?
I'm all for doing
a new release to facilitate the changes since
1.6.0?
I'm all for doing a release. It's really not that much work.
Let's work on getting the relevant patches applied, then give a few days
for everything to settle and then release!
So are there any patches that have faded away that we need
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, John Engelhart wrote:
On investigation I found that ares_timeout was returning a timeout of 0
seconds and 0 microseconds. The little digging I've done so far turned up
that ares_send.c sets the timeout to 0 seconds and 0 microseconds by
default.
That's the creation of
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Daniel Stenberg dan...@haxx.se wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, John Engelhart wrote:
On investigation I found that ares_timeout was returning a timeout of 0
seconds and 0 microseconds. The little digging I've done so far turned up
that ares_send.c sets the
2008/8/26, Brad House wrote:
this may warrant a new release, even if its a bit early.
Sure, why not! Releasing should be fairly light work. Let's just say that
I'll put together a release in 48 hours unless someone speaks up with
something serious to address first!
Just need
):
This is one form of a DNS cache poisoning attack.
this may warrant a new release, even if its a bit early.
Thanx,
Jaap
18 matches
Mail list logo
