On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Dave Bauer wrote:
> I have an online group that contains "@all@"
Good move on the upgrade -- you should also change @all@ to @online.
@all@ is known not to work with that release, and even if it did
work... you really want @online@ instead of @a...@.
cheers,
m
It's old! ejabberd-xs-2.0.3-2.fc9.olpc.i386
I have updated to ejabberd-xs.i386 0:2.0.3-5.fc9.olpc
We can test it again.
I have an online group that contains "@all@"
Thanks.
Dave
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:36 AM, Martin Langhoff
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:33 AM, Dave Bauer wrote:
> > I
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:33 AM, Dave Bauer wrote:
> Its jabber.sugarlabs.org aka schoolserver.solutiongrove.com
> ejabberd-xs-2.0.3
> Should be XS 0.5.2
Can you post the complete version string as reported by `rpm -qa
ejabberd-xs` ? I published various 2.0.3's, the early ones had a
broken @onlin
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Martin Langhoff
wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 3:53 AM, Caroline Meeks
> wrote:
> > I saw two problems while we were working.
> >
> > 1. We had two computers next to each A and B. A could see B but B could
> not
> > see A. Seemed to stay that way the whole aft
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 3:53 AM, Caroline Meeks
wrote:
> I saw two problems while we were working.
>
> 1. We had two computers next to each A and B. A could see B but B could not
> see A. Seemed to stay that way the whole afternoon.
You are posting here so I assume there's an XS involved ;-)
I saw two problems while we were working.
1. We had two computers next to each A and B. A could see B but B could not
see A. Seemed to stay that way the whole afternoon.
2. The CPU on the server went up to 99% from 3:10 to 3:40. Unfortunately
I'm not sure exactly what we were doing during that
