From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HknCK-00073C-JD for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 06 May 2007 20:19:13 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l46KHWDw003801; Sun, 6 May 2007 20:17:32 GMT Received: from randymail-a3.g.dreamhost.com (sd-green-bigip-83.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.83]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l46KDu6L030597 for ; Sun, 6 May 2007 20:13:56 GMT Received: from [192.168.1.4] (c-75-68-33-130.hsd1.nh.comcast.net [75.68.33.130]) by randymail-a3.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F887185A0E for ; Sun, 6 May 2007 13:13:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Dan Meltzer To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 42 news item for review: Radiant upgrade Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 16:13:56 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 References: <1178433936.13701.10.camel@ip6-localhost> <200705061600.56357.hydrogen@notyetimplemented.com> <20070506210618.0517c76c@snowflake> In-Reply-To: <20070506210618.0517c76c@snowflake> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200705061613.57060.hydrogen@notyetimplemented.com> X-Archives-Salt: 913a3e45-f463-4381-873a-67c6defb565c X-Archives-Hash: 05f6367874fb2833ec03437d73ceac0c On Sunday 06 May 2007 4:06:18 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 6 May 2007 16:00:56 -0400 > > Dan Meltzer wrote: > > > Er, making elog logged by default would not solve the "requires an > > > explicit read" problem. Making elog require an explicit read would > > > be far too annoying because most elog notices are noise. We've been > > > over this already. > > > > Not if one filters it properly. ELOG_CLASSES="warn error" sounds > > like a sane default to me. > > So you want users to have to explicitly acknowledge all ewarn notices? > Now *that*'s a way of making the system useless by overusing it. Err, warn notices are supposed to be important warnings. If they are not it sounds like a good job for QA. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list