Hauke Fath wrote: > On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 11:09:25 +0300, Andreas Gustafsson wrote: > > I have now committed the code to log the message, without rate > > limiting. If a consensus should arise that rate limiting the message > > is a good idea, the code to do that should be committed by someone in > > favor of it. > > I have seen kernel subsystems spam the console to the point of making > it unusable, which can get quite awkward on production machines. > > While I don't know if this is a relevant scenario for your change, > declaring it "somebody else's problem" has a funny ring.
I have already explained why I believe it's not a relevant scenario for this change. And I don't mean to make it someone else's problem - I take full responsibility for my commit, and if it turns out that it actually causes spammage, I will fix that one way or another. And similarly, if rate limiting is added and causes problems, I expect the developer adding it to take responsibility for that commit. I just don't want to end up being held responsible for problems caused by rate limiting I never wanted in the first place. -- Andreas Gustafsson, g...@gson.org