I'm fine with Nick's proposal to have two separate votes. Remko On Friday, January 24, 2014, Nick Williams <[email protected]> wrote:
> There has obviously been some serious discussion about these topics. We're > not going to come to a total agreement on this. I propose: > > - We have a committers-only vote in the "Enums and Custom Levels" thread > on whether to make Level an extensible enum. > - AFTER having that vote, we have a committers-only vote in this thread on > whether to add these three levels. > - We only roll back this revision AFTER the second vote is complete and IF > the vote rejects the new levels. > > Nick > > On Jan 23, 2014, at 7:58 AM, Paul Benedict wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Scott Deboy > <[email protected]<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '[email protected]');> > > wrote: > >> We don't need to scuttle the new levels to support extensible levels. >> > > > Of course. The two things are not technically related. That's not what > this is about, though. Since there are camps for and against the new > levels, I was hoping the "extensible enum" feature would bring about a > compromise. > > >> >> Gary's change is essentially a 'usability enhancement' - if anything >> close to 80% of the folks who might want custom levels can use new >> built-in levels, that's an API win in my book. Custom levels help the >> other 20%, and I'm supportive of that. >> >> Also please keep in mind this doesn't really add to our maintenance >> burden, which I think may be contributing to the concern about adding >> new levels. Gary already did the heavy lifting, and the change to >> something other than an enum for levels would just be a bit more work >> because of this addition. >> >> Scott >> >> On 1/23/14, Paul Benedict <[email protected] <javascript:_e({}, >> 'cvml', '[email protected]');>> wrote: >> > Let's not lose sight why the "extensible enum" discussion occurred. >> > Speaking solely for myself, I am not fond of the new logging levels; >> but I >> > don't want the framework from preventing them. The intention behind this >> > proposal was to get agreement by scuttling the new levels but allowing >> > anyone to add them in their own private code. >> > >> > >> > > Paul > > >
