On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 04:17:58PM +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote: > At Tue, 22 Oct 2013 14:11:01 +0800, > Liu Yuan wrote: > > > > On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 11:35:33PM +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote: > > > This patch adds two new opcode for runtime loglevel changes and let > > > dog support the changing from command line. This is useful for making > > > sheep process verbose temporally and can make troubleshooting easier. > > > > > > Example of usage: > > > > > > $ dog node loglevel list > > > emerg (0) > > > alert (1) > > > crit (2) > > > err (3) > > > warning (4) > > > notice (5) > > > info (6) > > > debug (7) > > > $ dog node loglevel get > > > info (6) > > > $ dog node loglevel set debug # <- change loglevel from info to debug > > > $ dog node loglevel get > > > debug (7) > > > > I am still not convinced of 'loglevel'. It would hard to extend, e.g, if we > > want to add more commands related to 'log', like 'log filter', we have no > > choice but to add 'dog node logfilter'. > > > > So I think 'dog node log' would be a good log namespace for its subcommands. > > That said, > > 'node log set' # implies to set log level > > 'node log get' # implies to get log level > > 'node log list' # implies to list log level > > 'node log filter' # operate on the content of log > > looks okay to me. > > > > How about "node log level {set,get,list}"? Users wouldn't be able to read the > intention of manipulating levels from "node log set".
Looks good to me Thanks Yuan -- sheepdog mailing list sheepdog@lists.wpkg.org http://lists.wpkg.org/mailman/listinfo/sheepdog