Hi Yan,
> > To Yan :
> > * If you complete the commit to a repository of Andrew, I hope for
> > release of pygui2.0.1.
> > * We are going to release it in a site of Japan.
> Hideo, all latest commits in "master" and "2.0" branch with "2.0.1" tag
> have been pushed.
I just confirmed it.
Man
Hi,
On 01/11/12 15:11, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> Hi Yan,
>
>> My bad, I didn't see Yan's reply.
>> He should have permissions now.
Andrew, thanks!
>
> Thank you for comment!!
>
> To Yan :
> * If you complete the commit to a repository of Andrew, I hope for release
Hi Andrew,
Hi Yan,
> My bad, I didn't see Yan's reply.
> He should have permissions now.
Thank you for comment!!
To Yan :
* If you complete the commit to a repository of Andrew, I hope for release of
pygui2.0.1.
* We are going to release it in a site of Japan.
Best Regards,
Hideo Yamauch
My bad, I didn't see Yan's reply.
He should have permissions now.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 3:09 PM, wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> Hi Yan,
>
> How did the matter that this repository could not reflect turn out?
>
> Best Regards,
> Hideo Yamauchi.
>
>
> --- On Mon, 2011/12/5, Gao,Yan wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrew
Hi Andrew,
Hi Yan,
How did the matter that this repository could not reflect turn out?
Best Regards,
Hideo Yamauchi.
--- On Mon, 2011/12/5, Gao,Yan wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On 11/30/11 19:01, Gao,Yan wrote:
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > On 11/28/11 07:53, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 24,
Hi Andrew,
On 11/30/11 19:01, Gao,Yan wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On 11/28/11 07:53, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Gao,Yan wrote:
>>> Hi Hideo,
>>>
>>> On 11/24/11 15:48, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
Hi Yan,
About this matter, were you selected?
>
Hi Yan,
> Created 2.0 branch and tagged "pacemaker-mgmt-2.0.1" which is compatible
> with pacemaker-1.0.x.
>
> https://github.com/gao-yan/pacemaker-mgmt/tree/2.0
Thanks!!
> Please verify it before I pushed it to ClusterLabs.
I just confirmed that I was not different in two next contents.
* ga
Hi Hideo,
On 12/02/11 14:38, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> Hi Yan,
> Hi Andrew,
>
> I confirmed movement in combination with Pacemaker1.0.12 in a repository of
> your test.
> * https://github.com/gao-yan/pacemaker-mgmt/commits/2.0-test
>
>
> On my test, both SNMP and GUI worked without
Hi Yan,
Hi Andrew,
I confirmed movement in combination with Pacemaker1.0.12 in a repository of
your test.
* https://github.com/gao-yan/pacemaker-mgmt/commits/2.0-test
On my test, both SNMP and GUI worked without a problem.
Please release the contents of this repository as GUI for Pacemaker1.0
Hi Yan,
> I pushed a new branch "2.0-test" which is supposed to be compatible with
> pacemaker-1.0.x:
>
> https://github.com/gao-yan/pacemaker-mgmt/commits/2.0-test
>
> Could you please build and test it against pacemaker-1.0 branch?
>
> If everything works fine, I'll make a "2.0" branch and ta
Hi Andrew,
On 11/28/11 07:53, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Gao,Yan wrote:
>> Hi Hideo,
>>
>> On 11/24/11 15:48, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
>>> Hi Yan,
>>>
>>> About this matter, were you selected?
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Hideo Yamauchi.
>>>
>>> --- On Wed, 201
Hi Hideo,
On 11/25/11 08:26, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> Hi Yan,
>
> I confirmed contents.
> I think that I do not have any problem.
Nice, thanks for doing that!
>
> I demand that I prepare the tag of 2.0.1 version that applied the next patch.
> * http://hg.clusterlabs.org/pacemaker/py
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Gao,Yan wrote:
> Hi Hideo,
>
> On 11/24/11 15:48, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
>> Hi Yan,
>>
>> About this matter, were you selected?
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Hideo Yamauchi.
>>
>> --- On Wed, 2011/9/21, Gao,Yan wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 09/19/11 12:19, renayama1966
Hi Yan,
I confirmed contents.
I think that I do not have any problem.
I demand that I prepare the tag of 2.0.1 version that applied the next patch.
* http://hg.clusterlabs.org/pacemaker/pygui/rev/c08b84a8203f
Because we want latest GUI for Pacemaker1.0.
Best Regards,
Hideo Yamauchi.
--- On Th
Hi Yan,
Thank you for comment.
> I've converted it, and for now put it to:
> https://github.com/gao-yan/pacemaker-mgmt
I watch contents.
Cheers,
Hideo Yamauchi.
--- On Thu, 2011/11/24, Gao,Yan wrote:
> Hi Hideo,
>
> On 11/24/11 15:48, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> > Hi Yan,
> >
> > Ab
Hi Hideo,
On 11/24/11 15:48, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> Hi Yan,
>
> About this matter, were you selected?
>
> Best Regards,
> Hideo Yamauchi.
>
> --- On Wed, 2011/9/21, Gao,Yan wrote:
>
>>
>> On 09/19/11 12:19, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>
I can create a
Hi Yan,
About this matter, were you selected?
Best Regards,
Hideo Yamauchi.
--- On Wed, 2011/9/21, Gao,Yan wrote:
>
> On 09/19/11 12:19, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> >> I can create a place for it on clusterlabs.org or github if thats
> >> where Yan would like it to
On 09/19/11 12:19, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
>> I can create a place for it on clusterlabs.org or github if thats
>> where Yan would like it to live,
Thanks!
> but the conversion itself it for the
>> project owner to do (and verify) ;-)
OK. I'll convert it and decide wher
Hi Andrew,
> I can create a place for it on clusterlabs.org or github if thats
> where Yan would like it to live, but the conversion itself it for the
> project owner to do (and verify) ;-)
Thank you for comment.
Wait for an opinion of Yan.
Best Regards,
Hideo Yamauchi.
--- On Mon, 2011/9/1
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:05 PM, wrote:
> Hi Yan,
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Thank you for comment.
>
>> Hi Hideo,
>>
>> On 08/04/11 08:13, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
>> > Hi Yan,
>> >
>> >> Pushed. Since we don't have a separate branch, you might need to
>> >> back-port this patch to pacemaker-mgmt
Hi Yan,
Hi Andrew,
Thank you for comment.
> Hi Hideo,
>
> On 08/04/11 08:13, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> > Hi Yan,
> >
> >> Pushed. Since we don't have a separate branch, you might need to
> >> back-port this patch to pacemaker-mgmt-2.0.0, which is compatible with
> >> pacemaker-1.0.x
>
Hi Hideo,
On 08/04/11 08:13, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> Hi Yan,
>
>> Pushed. Since we don't have a separate branch, you might need to
>> back-port this patch to pacemaker-mgmt-2.0.0, which is compatible with
>> pacemaker-1.0.x
>
> Thanks!!
>
> However, we need the release of pacemaker-
Hi Yan,
> Pushed. Since we don't have a separate branch, you might need to
> back-port this patch to pacemaker-mgmt-2.0.0, which is compatible with
> pacemaker-1.0.x
Thanks!!
However, we need the release of pacemaker-mgmt for Pacemaker1.0.
Is it impossible you apply a patch to a repository of p
Hi Hideo,
On 08/02/11 09:14, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> Hi Yan,
>
> I confirmed that a trap was transmitted with a patch definitely.
OK, thanks!
>
> We request that we apply a patch to each pacemaker-mgmt of pacemaker1.0 and
> pacemaker1.1.
Pushed. Since we don't have a separate branc
Hi Yan,
I confirmed that a trap was transmitted with a patch definitely.
We request that we apply a patch to each pacemaker-mgmt of pacemaker1.0 and
pacemaker1.1.
* After this correction, pacemaker-mgmt of Pacemaker1.0 hopes that a new
version is released.( pacemaker-mgmt-2.1.0 ? )
Thanks!
Hi Yan,
> That attached patch places it at the end of the loop. I think it should
> work. Please give it a test.
Thank you for the making of the patch.
I confirm movement and report a result.
Best Regards,
Hideo Yamauchi.
--- On Fri, 2011/7/29, Gao,Yan wrote:
>
>
> On 07/29/11 08:29, renay
On 07/29/11 08:29, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
>>>
>>> I think that the following correction is necessary.
>>> snmp_subagent/hbagent.c
>>> (snip)
>>> } else {
>>>
>>> /* snmp request */
>>> snmp_read(
Hi Lars,
Hi Yan,
Hi All,
Thank you for comment.
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 01:43:00PM +0900, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> > Hi Lars,
> > Hi All,
> >
> > A cause to be delayed became clear.
> >
> > This problem occurs by a timing.
> >
> > When hbagent receives F_STATUS message while hbage
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 01:43:00PM +0900, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> Hi Lars,
> Hi All,
>
> A cause to be delayed became clear.
>
> This problem occurs by a timing.
>
> When hbagent receives F_STATUS message while hbagent waits for a reply of the
> api communication, F_STATUS is perfor
Hi Yan,
> However, it is F_STATUS message of the considerably first stage that hbagent
> performs queueing .
> I pinpoint which hb_api of hbagent it is.
I confirmed it.
It is like the get_uuid processing that F_STATUS message is performed queueing
of.
--- The next log added FUNCTION macro to
Hi Yan,
Thank you for comment.
> > Hi Lars,
> > Hi All,
> >
> > A cause to be delayed became clear.
> >
> > This problem occurs by a timing.
> >
> > When hbagent receives F_STATUS message while hbagent waits for a reply of
> > the api communication,
> Under this circumstance, is there a spec
On 07/26/11 12:43, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> Hi Lars,
> Hi All,
>
> A cause to be delayed became clear.
>
> This problem occurs by a timing.
>
> When hbagent receives F_STATUS message while hbagent waits for a reply of the
> api communication,
Under this circumstance, is there a spec
Hi Lars,
Hi All,
A cause to be delayed became clear.
This problem occurs by a timing.
When hbagent receives F_STATUS message while hbagent waits for a reply of the
api communication, F_STATUS is performed queueing of.
When hbagent caught the event from Heartbeat, this message is handled.
There
Hi Lars,
Thank you for advice.
I confirm the details of the problem using tools such as tcpdump again.
Please wait
Best Regards,
Hideo Yamauchi.
--- On Fri, 2011/7/22, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 10:18:18AM +0900, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> > Hi Lars,
> >
>
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 10:18:18AM +0900, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> Hi Lars,
>
> Thank you for comment.
>
> > You get a *node* active.
> > Why do you think this is wrong?
> > Which timing would have been "proper", and why?
>
> When I examined it before, I changed a source and obtained
Hi Lars,
Thank you for comment.
> You get a *node* active.
> Why do you think this is wrong?
> Which timing would have been "proper", and why?
When I examined it before, I changed a source and obtained the following result.
I synchronized at the time of each node and took log.
It is 16:44:41 t
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:04:51AM +0900, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> We are troubled in the face of this problem.
> Please give advice.
>
> * This problem changed the destination of the mailing list to seem to be a
> problem of the HA.
>
> Best Regards,
> Hideo Yamauchi.
>
Hi All,
We are troubled in the face of this problem.
Please give advice.
* This problem changed the destination of the mailing list to seem to be a
problem of the HA.
Best Regards,
Hideo Yamauchi.
--- On Fri, 2011/6/17, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I registered this pr
38 matches
Mail list logo
