| 1 |
On Sunday 06 May 2007 4:06:18 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 6 May 2007 16:00:56 -0400 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Dan Meltzer <hydrogen@×××××××××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > Er, making elog logged by default would not solve the "requires an |
| 6 |
> > > explicit read" problem. Making elog require an explicit read would |
| 7 |
> > > be far too annoying because most elog notices are noise. We've been |
| 8 |
> > > over this already. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Not if one filters it properly. ELOG_CLASSES="warn error" sounds |
| 11 |
> > like a sane default to me. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> So you want users to have to explicitly acknowledge all ewarn notices? |
| 14 |
> Now *that*'s a way of making the system useless by overusing it. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Err, warn notices are supposed to be important warnings. If they are not it |
| 17 |
sounds like a good job for QA. |
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives