On Saturday 19 July 2014 20:04:09, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Using the following regex:
> ap_log_.?error.*(_ERR|_EMERG|_CRIT)[^A]*$
> many places with "missing" APLOGNO can be found.
>
> There are some false positives because the [^A]* at the end of the
> regex is here to check, in a more o
Le 20/07/2014 15:45, Marion & Christophe JAILLET a écrit :
My may concern is to keep 2.4 and trunk as close as possible, but
should I also see what can be backported to 2.2 ?
s/may/main/
Hi
I have proposed for backport for 2.4. See STATUS.
http://svn.apache.org/r1611978
http://svn.apache.org/r1612068
should merge without any trouble and should not generate any conflict
with code only in trunk, should it be backported one day.
What I have submitted and not proposed for
I'd strongly encourage backporting, if accepted on 2.x branch.
The APn code exists to find guidance through web, email archives and forum
searches. Keeping these consistent between 2.4 and 2.next is crucial.
It also ensures further backports apply without a host of future conflicts.
Christ
Le 19/07/2014 22:44, William A. Rowe Jr. a écrit :
If it violates 80 col formatting style rule, absolutely do not shift
the APLOGNO macro to the first line.
Sure.
Moreover, when submitting patches, I'll take care to only propose things
that can be backported easily.
Changes relying on othe
Spanning lines in regex tests is trivial.
If it violates 80 col formatting style rule, absolutely do not shift the
APLOGNO macro to the first line.
Christophe JAILLET wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I was wondering if logged message, at least APLOG_ERR or APLOG_EMERG and
>APLOG_CRIT, should all have a corresp
Le 19/07/2014 22:16, Eric Covener a écrit :
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Christophe JAILLET
wrote:
Why should it be removed in the future? Isn't it useful to self document the
code when, for any reason, no APLOGNO should be appended ?
I think you misinterpreted, it is not related to APLOGN
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Christophe JAILLET
wrote:
> Why should it be removed in the future? Isn't it useful to self document the
> code when, for any reason, no APLOGNO should be appended ?
I think you misinterpreted, it is not related to APLOGNO.
You can see in the 1.3 tree that httpd
Le 19/07/2014 20:04, Christophe JAILLET a écrit :
I was wondering if logged message, at least APLOG_ERR or APLOG_EMERG
and APLOG_CRIT, should all have a corresponding APLOGNO()?
While updating code for that, I came across APLOG_NOERRNO which is
defined as:
/* APLOG_NOERRNO is ignored and
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> IMO anything more important than DEBUG needs a number, but I think even many
> DEBUG messages have numbers.
+1
--
Eric Covener
cove...@gmail.com
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Christophe JAILLET <
christophe.jail...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering if logged message, at least APLOG_ERR or APLOG_EMERG and
> APLOG_CRIT, should all have a corresponding APLOGNO()?
>
> Using the following regex:
>ap_log_.?error.*(_ERR|_EMERG|_
Hi,
I was wondering if logged message, at least APLOG_ERR or APLOG_EMERG and
APLOG_CRIT, should all have a corresponding APLOGNO()?
Using the following regex:
ap_log_.?error.*(_ERR|_EMERG|_CRIT)[^A]*$
many places with "missing" APLOGNO can be found.
There are some false positives because t
12 matches
Mail list logo