>>> On 8/8/2008 at 5:51 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bernard Li"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brad:
>
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Bernard Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I would just file a bug in bugzilla and upload the patch there.
>
> I just submitted the bug to bugzilla.gan
Brad:
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Bernard Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would just file a bug in bugzilla and upload the patch there.
I just submitted the bug to bugzilla.ganglia.info:
http://bugzilla.ganglia.info/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198
If you could upload the patch ther
>>> On 8/8/2008 at 9:59 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bernard Li"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 5:23 AM, Kostas Georgiou
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> It will obviously be easier for all packagers to have easilly accessible
>> patches instead of having to backport
Hi Brad:
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Brad Nicholes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The backport is already in the STATUS file. It does include the revert of
> hash.c, but I can create a patch that just applies to process_xml.c. Where
> should be put the patch file? Should it go into www.gan
>>> On 8/7/2008 at 11:44 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Carlo
Marcelo Arenas Belon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 09:51:14AM -0600, Brad Nicholes wrote:
>> I reverted the workaround in hash.c
>
> I think we should leave that one in there anyway (maybe as an assert?) as a
On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 09:51:14AM -0600, Brad Nicholes wrote:
> I reverted the workaround in hash.c
I think we should leave that one in there anyway (maybe as an assert?) as a
hash lookup in a NULL pointer hash is invalid anyway and will result in a
segfault (if we make a mistake somewhere else t
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Brad Nicholes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I reverted the workaround in hash.c and fixed process_xml.c to process the
> EXTRA_ELEMENT tag correctly. The problem was the fact that the EXTRA_ELEMENT
> data should only be processing this tag if gmetad is in authori
I reverted the workaround in hash.c and fixed process_xml.c to process the
EXTRA_ELEMENT tag correctly. The problem was the fact that the EXTRA_ELEMENT
data should only be processing this tag if gmetad is in authority mode. It was
missing a simple check for authority mode that the other tags
