On Dec 28, 2006 19:05 -0500, Jody McIntyre wrote: > On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 04:43:14PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > One issue with this is if a message is unclear or otherwise lacking > > information and it needs to be fixed then it presumably needs to have > > a new message ID. That in turn means that the message database will > > have duplicate information, or there needs to be a facility to link > > different messages together like "XXXX: (previously YYYY, ZZZZ)"... > > I don't understand why this duplication is a problem or why we would > need to "link" back to previous messages.
Because if there is some knowledge accumulated with message XXXX (that is also applicable to the "same" message YYYY and ZZZZ) then it will be a nightmare to keep all of these entries in sync if there isn't some kind of message linking. Consider a step-by-step debugging map that says "if you see message YYYY proceed to step 20 to debug a network connection problem". Or if there are translations of the message catalog, it only makes sense to do that for "current" messages, but it is useful to know that someone running an old version of lustre that hits YYYY or ZZZZ can look at the current web page and find the translated message. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Principal Software Engineer Cluster File Systems, Inc. _______________________________________________ Lustre-devel mailing list [email protected] https://mail.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-devel
