Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update description of use_aggressive_host_checking #278 #386

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
May 24, 2022

Conversation

nook24
Copy link
Member

@nook24 nook24 commented May 24, 2022

No description provided.

Copy link
Contributor

@jacobbaungard jacobbaungard left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Isn't it so that:

use_aggressive_host_checking = 0 then state 1 is treated as OK.
use_aggressive_host_checking = 1 then state 1 is treated as DOWN?

I read the suggested text here the opposite way around.

@@ -521,9 +521,11 @@ interval_length=60
# AGGRESSIVE HOST CHECKING OPTION
# If you don't want to turn on aggressive host checking features, set
# this value to 0 (the default). Otherwise set this value to 1 to
# enable the aggressive check option. Read the docs for more info
# enable the aggressive check option. When enabled, Naemon will tread
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

tread -> treat

Signed-off-by: nook24 <info@nook24.eu>
@nook24
Copy link
Member Author

nook24 commented May 24, 2022

You are right! I have fixed this.

Copy link
Contributor

@jacobbaungard jacobbaungard left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice, looks good, thanks!

@jacobbaungard jacobbaungard merged commit d722b63 into naemon:master May 24, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants