Yes, probably so.
On Sep 3, 2010, at 8:53 AM, Scott Atchley wrote:
> Shouldn't the regression be a separate ticket since it is unrelated?
>
> Scott
>
> On Sep 3, 2010, at 8:20 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>
>> Ditto for the v1.5 patch -- it wasn't committed anywhere and no CMR was
>> filed, so I r
Shouldn't the regression be a separate ticket since it is unrelated?
Scott
On Sep 3, 2010, at 8:20 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Ditto for the v1.5 patch -- it wasn't committed anywhere and no CMR was
> filed, so I re-opened the ticket.
>
> Plus you mentioned a 2us (!) latency increase. Doesn't t
Ditto for the v1.5 patch -- it wasn't committed anywhere and no CMR was filed,
so I re-opened the ticket.
Plus you mentioned a 2us (!) latency increase. Doesn't that need attention,
too?
On Sep 1, 2010, at 9:09 AM, Scott Atchley wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> I posted a patch on the ticket.
>
> Scott
Jeff,
I posted a patch on the ticket.
Scott
On Aug 27, 2010, at 3:08 PM, Scott Atchley wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> Sure, I need to register to file the tickets.
>
> I have not had a chance yet. I will try to look at them first thing next week.
>
> Scott
>
> On Aug 27, 2010, at 2:41 PM, Jeff Squyres
Jeff,
Sure, I need to register to file the tickets.
I have not had a chance yet. I will try to look at them first thing next week.
Scott
On Aug 27, 2010, at 2:41 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Scott --
>
> Can you file tickets for this against 1.4 and 1.5? These should probably be
> blockers.
>
Scott --
Can you file tickets for this against 1.4 and 1.5? These should probably be
blockers.
Have you been able to track these down any further, perchance?
On Aug 26, 2010, at 10:38 AM, Scott Atchley wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Testing 1.5rc5 over MX with the same setup as 1.4.3rc1 (RHEL 5.4 and
