Re: Should we change the -c output?

On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 02:32:40AM -0500, John Lauro wrote: > I like the default message. If you want to suppress it, then you can use -q. > Having some standard output that can be suppressed with -q is also > fairly standard for UNIX commands. > In haproxy we have these two flags: -q is meant

Re: Should we change the -c output?

I like the default message. If you want to suppress it, then you can use -q. Having some standard output that can be suppressed with -q is also fairly standard for UNIX commands. On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 4:07 AM William Lallemand wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 09:52:57AM +0100, Baptiste

Re: Should we change the -c output?

On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 09:52:57AM +0100, Baptiste wrote: > On Thu, Nov 9, 2023 at 5:00 PM William Lallemand > wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > haproxy -c seems to be too verbose in the systemd logs by > > showing "Configuration file is valid" for every reloads. > > > > Is there anyone against

Re: Should we change the -c output?

On Thu, Nov 9, 2023 at 5:00 PM William Lallemand wrote: > Hello, > > haproxy -c seems to be too verbose in the systemd logs by > showing "Configuration file is valid" for every reloads. > > Is there anyone against removing this message by default? > This will still output the alerts and warnings

Should we change the -c output?

Hello, haproxy -c seems to be too verbose in the systemd logs by showing "Configuration file is valid" for every reloads. Is there anyone against removing this message by default? This will still output the alerts and warnings if some exists but the "Configuration file is valid" message will