On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:24:59PM +0100, Michael Gmelin wrote:
> > On 10 Feb 2015, at 22:17, Michael Gmelin wrote:
> >
> > Just compared 10.1 to current, unmodified output looks the same, but
> > pipelines don't work properly:
> >
> > 10.1:
> > # uptime | wc
> > 1 12 68
> >
> > Current:
> > #
On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 22:55 +, Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 02:32:44PM -0700, Ian Lepore wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 22:24 +0100, Michael Gmelin wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > On 10 Feb 2015, at 22:17, Michael Gmelin wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> On 10
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 02:32:44PM -0700, Ian Lepore wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 22:24 +0100, Michael Gmelin wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On 10 Feb 2015, at 22:17, Michael Gmelin wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> On 10 Feb 2015, at 21:13, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> > >>
> > >> [Moving to cur
>
> I wonder if that implies that any non-normal exit from a program that
> has been xo'd will result in the loss of output that would not have been
> lost before the xo changes? That could lead to all kinds of subtle
> failures of existing scripts and apps.
Well, so long as the app doesn't crash
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 22:24:59 +0100
Michael Gmelin wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 10 Feb 2015, at 22:17, Michael Gmelin wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 10 Feb 2015, at 21:13, Marcel Moolenaar
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> [Moving to current@]
> >>
> >>> On Feb 10, 2015, at 11:52 AM, Peter Wemm wrote:
>
On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 22:24 +0100, Michael Gmelin wrote:
>
>
> > On 10 Feb 2015, at 22:17, Michael Gmelin wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 10 Feb 2015, at 21:13, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> >>
> >> [Moving to current@]
> >>
> >>> On Feb 10, 2015, at 11:52 AM, Peter Wemm wrote:
> >>>
> >>> S
> On 10 Feb 2015, at 22:17, Michael Gmelin wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> On 10 Feb 2015, at 21:13, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
>>
>> [Moving to current@]
>>
>>> On Feb 10, 2015, at 11:52 AM, Peter Wemm wrote:
>>>
>>> Surprises:
>>> * nagios doesn't like w / uptime anymore. libxo perhaps?
>>
>> Seems
> On 10 Feb 2015, at 21:13, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
>
> [Moving to current@]
>
>> On Feb 10, 2015, at 11:52 AM, Peter Wemm wrote:
>>
>> Surprises:
>> * nagios doesn't like w / uptime anymore. libxo perhaps?
>
> Seems most likely, although I haven’t seen any differences in output
> in my (a
[Moving to current@]
On Feb 10, 2015, at 11:52 AM, Peter Wemm wrote:
> Surprises:
> * nagios doesn't like w / uptime anymore. libxo perhaps?
Seems most likely, although I haven’t seen any differences in output
in my (admittedly limited) testing.
In what way does Nagios not like w/uptime?
Any c
