On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 at 17:22, Alex Schultz wrote:
>
> Hey everyone,
>
> Based on previous emails around this[0][1], I have proposed a possible
> reducing in our usage by switching the scenario001--011 jobs to
> non-voting and removing them from the gate[2]. This will reduce the
> likelihood of
On 10/31/18 4:59 PM, Harald Jensås wrote:
On Wed, 2018-10-31 at 11:39 -0600, Wesley Hayutin wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 11:21 AM Alex Schultz
wrote:
Hey everyone,
Based on previous emails around this[0][1], I have proposed a
possible
reducing in our usage by switching the
On Wed, 2018-10-31 at 11:39 -0600, Wesley Hayutin wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 11:21 AM Alex Schultz
> wrote:
> > Hey everyone,
> >
> > Based on previous emails around this[0][1], I have proposed a
> > possible
> > reducing in our usage by switching the scenario001--011 jobs to
> >
Alex Schultz writes:
> Hey everyone,
>
> Based on previous emails around this[0][1], I have proposed a possible
> reducing in our usage by switching the scenario001--011 jobs to
> non-voting and removing them from the gate[2]. This will reduce the
> likelihood of causing gate resets and
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 11:21 AM Alex Schultz wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> Based on previous emails around this[0][1], I have proposed a possible
> reducing in our usage by switching the scenario001--011 jobs to
> non-voting and removing them from the gate[2]. This will reduce the
> likelihood of
Hey everyone,
Based on previous emails around this[0][1], I have proposed a possible
reducing in our usage by switching the scenario001--011 jobs to
non-voting and removing them from the gate[2]. This will reduce the
likelihood of causing gate resets and hopefully allow us to land
corrective
