----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Michael A Chase" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Cygwin-Apps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 23:16 Subject: Re: Low-level progress messages in setup.log
> > === > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael A Chase" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Cygwin-Apps" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 4:33 PM > Subject: Low-level progress messages in setup.log > > > > log() appears to be called for a lot of progress messages without > > LOG_BABBLE. This causes the messages to be saved in both setup.log > and > > setup.log.full. "io_stream::~io_stream called" in io_stream.cc in > > particular > > adds a lot of bulk to setup.log. > > > > I think I can identify many of those low-level progress messages that > would > > be better not included in setup.log. Would you be interested in a > patch? > > Sure. note that ~io_stream called belongs in setup.log. It definitely goes there now, but what benefit are we gaining by having low-level progress messages in the permanent log? I thought that was what setup.log.full was for. My original thought was to go through the source files and basically change any log() calls that said 'called' or 'peeked' or similar low-level progress indicators and change them from LOG_TIMESTAMP to either LOG_BABBLE or LOG_TIMESTAMP | LOG_BABBLE. If some of those progress messages are meant to be in setup.log, I'll need to know what policy to follow. Just a hint for now and we can finalize the plan when you see some of my patches. It's going to take me quite a while to get really up to speed, so if you have any repetative work that you haven't found time for, I'd be glad to handle those for you. -- Mac :}) ** I normally forward private questions to the appropriate mail list. ** Give a hobbit a fish and he eats fish for a day. Give a hobbit a ring and he eats fish for an age.
