On 03/16/2016 07:24 AM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 09:52:31AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 05:10:48PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271183
>>>
>>> We only wait .5 seconds for the session daemon to
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 05:10:48PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271183
>
> We only wait .5 seconds for the session daemon to start up and present
If this is not pushed already, I think 0.5 seconds would be easier to
read and not confuse with the "5
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 09:52:31AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 05:10:48PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271183
We only wait .5 seconds for the session daemon to start up and present
its socket, which isn't sufficient for
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 05:10:48PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271183
>
> We only wait .5 seconds for the session daemon to start up and present
> its socket, which isn't sufficient for many users. Bump up the sleep
> interval and retry amount so we
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271183
We only wait .5 seconds for the session daemon to start up and present
its socket, which isn't sufficient for many users. Bump up the sleep
interval and retry amount so we wait for a total of 5 seconds.
---
danpb suggests dropping the reverting
