On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, David Nolan wrote: > However it annoys me as well, and in the large set of mon > patches I sent to Jim a couple weeks ago I changed the behavior to pass the > output from the sucessful run, which I felt was more logical.
my reasoning is that if something was not working and then started working again, you want to know what the "something" was. by passing the successful output to the upalert, you won't necessarily know what started working again. > clear in my patch comments that this had been changed, so Jim could choose > not to incorporate it if he felt it shouldn't be changed.) this behavior should be a per-period and a global option which specifies the default behavior. _______________________________________________ mon mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/mon
