httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Fritsch>
Subject Re: Error codes
Date Tue, 29 Nov 2011 23:30:43 GMT
On Monday 28 November 2011, Rich Bowen wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2011, at 11:21 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> > A question on procedure: Do you want to add all error codes at
> > once and then fill in the descriptions or add the error codes as
> > the documentation evolves? If the former, some scripting would
> > probably save a lot of work, too.
> If it can be done all at once with a script, that would be great.
> The only concern from there would be the ease of applying that
> change to earlier versions. Presumably the trunk -> 2.4 patch
> would work pretty well, but -> 2.2 would take a lot of work. Not
> sure that it would be worth it, though. I'm in favor of making
> this a 2.4-only effort.
> > I am not sure that every debug message needs a code, maybe one
> > could at first only tag those of level info or higher? Or maybe
> > even warning?
> Ah. Good point. Yes, we should probably skip stuff in Debug, unless
> it makes sense to add them on a case-by-case basis later on. (Not
> sure what would justify that, but perhaps some messages are more
> common than others? More important? More … something.) I would say
> warn and higher, but perhaps it merits further discussion. Adding
> them to info now might save hassle later on if we wanted to
> further document those, and costs us nothing now, except for 6
> characters in the log message. What do folks think?

Currently my scripts produces:

This is level info and up, but that is easily changed.

The script still misses all occurences where the format string is 
split into several parts (e.g. over several lines), where the loglevel 
is not constant but a variable, and possibly some others.

Are other folks comfortable with going this way? Add it to 2.4?

View raw message