On 12:55 Fri 13 Nov , Michael Reed wrote:
>
> > This works too. Would you care about the patch?
>
> I think the point is to not upset the customer by suggesting that
> they are "lame".
I don't think that our customers can be upset so easily :). Seriously
the original phrase is here for many
Sasha Khapyorsky wrote:
> On 19:24 Thu 12 Nov , Sammy Wilborn wrote:
- printf("\nError: Lame choice!\n");
+ printf("\nError: Please try again.\n");
>>> "Try again" is good, but it is useful to provide a reason too, so let's
>>> do it even more "professional":
>>>
>
On 19:24 Thu 12 Nov , Sammy Wilborn wrote:
> > > - printf("\nError: Lame choice!\n");
> > > + printf("\nError: Please try again.\n");
> >
> > "Try again" is good, but it is useful to provide a reason too, so let's
> > do it even more "professional":
> >
> > printf("\nError
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 04:55:27AM +0200, Sasha Khapyorsky wrote:
> On 12:41 Fri 06 Nov , Michael Reed wrote:
> > opensm enters an uninterruptible loop when the user enters
> > "-g 0" on the command line. The only way to kill opensm is to
> > background the process and send "kill -9".
>
> The
On 12:41 Fri 06 Nov , Michael Reed wrote:
> opensm enters an uninterruptible loop when the user enters
> "-g 0" on the command line. The only way to kill opensm is to
> background the process and send "kill -9".
The reason is that the port chooser is running in code section where all
signals
