On 2/26/07, Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Josh Berkus wrote:
The next Summer of Code is just around the corner.
Last year, we had 46 submissions and seven we accepted. Out of the SoC we got
two ongoing contributors, several good patches, two code refactors and even
an employee
On 2/26/07, Josh Berkus josh@agliodbs.com wrote:
Andrew,
Is there a list of projects? Or can we suggest some?
Suggest away, please!
I'm going to update the website soon, would appreciate new content.
I can also volunteer to mentor continuing work on a TPC-E kit, for C
stored procedures and
On 1/17/07, Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/12/07, Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you think about setting up the buildfarm clients
with the users they are willing to test patches for, as opposed to
having the
On 1/12/07, Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you think about setting up the buildfarm clients
with the users they are willing to test patches for, as opposed to
having the patch system track who is are trusted users? My thoughts
are the former is
On 1/11/07, Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not clear about what is being proposed. Currently buildfarm syncs
against (or pulls a fresh copy from, depending on configuration) either
the main anoncvs repo or a mirror (which you can get using cvsup or
On 1/12/07, Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 02:35:13PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I caught this thread about O_DIRECT on kerneltrap.org:
http://kerneltrap.org/node/7563
It sounds like there is much to be gained here in terms of reducing
the
On 1/4/07, Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gavin Sherry wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Pull source directly from repositories (cvs, git, etc.) PLM
doesn't really track actually scm repositories. It requires
directories of source code to be traversed, which
I caught this thread about O_DIRECT on kerneltrap.org:
http://kerneltrap.org/node/7563
It sounds like there is much to be gained here in terms of reducing
the number of user/kernel space copies in the operating system. I got
the impression that posix_fadvise in the Linux kernel isn't as good
On 1/4/07, Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 09:09 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
That also happens. The only way I can see of ensuring it does not happen
would be to auto-process all patch submissions.
Sounds a good idea. Patch farm anyone? Auto apply/make check?
I'm
On 1/4/07, Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/4/07, Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 09:09 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
That also happens. The only way I can see of ensuring it does not
happen
would be to auto-process all patch
OSDL had a tool called PLM with a primary goal to test patches against
the Linux kernel. It applied them and built them on multiple
platforms. It's a pretty simple idea and here are some links to what
it did; the systems appear to still be up for the moment so here are a
couple of links to what
On 1/4/07, Gavin Sherry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Gavin Sherry wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Pull source directly from repositories (cvs, git, etc.) PLM
doesn't really track actually scm repositories. It requires
12 matches
Mail list logo
