On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:47:50PM -0400, michael chang wrote:
> On 9/13/05, Stu Teasdale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 03:37:58PM -0400, michael chang wrote:
> > > I don't suppose we'd know what most of the existing code is licenced
> > > under as a whole, would we? (Idea
On 9/13/05, Stu Teasdale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 03:37:58PM -0400, michael chang wrote:
> > I don't suppose we'd know what most of the existing code is licenced
> > under as a whole, would we? (Ideally, that would seem to be the best
> > choice as a licence that we use
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 03:37:58PM -0400, michael chang wrote:
> I don't suppose we'd know what most of the existing code is licenced
> under as a whole, would we? (Ideally, that would seem to be the best
> choice as a licence that we use...)
The main codebase is BSD, however some of the code was
On 9/13/05, Stu Teasdale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 05:49:33PM -0400, michael chang wrote:
> > Ganglia 2.x.x something is in Debian -- maybe collaborate with people
> > there and see how many users use it (or don't use it).
>
> Hi there, I'm the ganglia maintainer in debi
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 05:49:33PM -0400, michael chang wrote:
> Ganglia 2.x.x something is in Debian -- maybe collaborate with people
> there and see how many users use it (or don't use it).
Hi there, I'm the ganglia maintainer in debian. I have a 3.0.1 package
ready to go, but some fairly major
On 9/12/05, Martin Knoblauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Another thing may be the new AIX metrics code. As far as I know it
> > has
> > > not been committed to CVS. I also remeber it needed some minor
> > changes
> > > in the framework. Which means testing ...
> >
> > Do we want to have a rel
Martin Knoblauch wrote:
First of all, I am definitely in favour of doing 3.0.2 soon. Current
CVS has the 64-bit disk accounting fix and the correct reporting of
wio. both pretty critical bugs.
As for what should go in my opinion is that we just should do it and
increase the release frequency if
>
> > Another thing may be the new AIX metrics code. As far as I know it
> has
> > not been committed to CVS. I also remeber it needed some minor
> changes
> > in the framework. Which means testing ...
>
> Do we want to have a release candidate when this is put in? (e.g.
> 3.0.3-rc1, 3.0.3-rc2
--- Bernard Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think patches should be made against CVS, since Martin has released
> what was previously available in CVS as an "unofficial" 3.0.2.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bernard
>
Patches against CVS would definitely help. Patches against
3.0.1-released should be O
On 9/11/05, Martin Knoblauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First of all, I am definitely in favour of doing 3.0.2 soon. Current
> CVS has the 64-bit disk accounting fix and the correct reporting of
> wio. both pretty critical bugs.
>
> As for what should go in my opinion is that we just should do
First of all, I am definitely in favour of doing 3.0.2 soon. Current
CVS has the 64-bit disk accounting fix and the correct reporting of
wio. both pretty critical bugs.
As for what should go in my opinion is that we just should do it and
increase the release frequency if more needed stuff comes
I think patches should be made against CVS, since Martin has released what was
previously available in CVS as an "unofficial" 3.0.2.
Cheers,
Bernard
From: michael chang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat 10/09/2005 17:57
To: Bernard Li
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED];
12 matches
Mail list logo
