You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com> on 2007/12/28 20:52:25 UTC
Re: svn commit: r607314 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:31:31 -0000
wrowe@apache.org wrote:
> @@ -140,11 +143,15 @@
> http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi?rev=607245&view=rev
> Backport version for 2.2.x of patch:
> Trunk version of patch works
> - +1: rpluem, niq
> + +1: rpluem, niq, wrowe
> niq: Provisional +1, but the error logging should be at a
> consistent level (maybe WARNING?)
> rpluem: Set it to ERROR in all cases as IMHO this should not
> happen. If this level is too high we can reduce it later.
> + wrowe: disagree with rpluem - it's incredibly disruptive to
> admins
> + to have their logs filled with noise - warning would be
> ok,
> + provided there's no more than one entry per failed
> request.
> + If their request would die outright, only then is
> rpluem right.
+1 to wrowe's comment. I was thinking the same, just not loudly
enough to be the first to say so.
--
Nick Kew
Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book
http://www.apachetutor.org/
Re: svn commit: r607314 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi?rev=607245&view=rev
>
> Bill, is your vote conditional on changing this to the WARNING level or
> can this be back ported as is?
Please back it down to WARN and it has my +1. DEBUG was much too quiet,
but this is not an ERR.
Bill
Re: svn commit: r607314 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS
Posted by Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>.
On 12/28/2007 08:52 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:31:31 -0000
> wrowe@apache.org wrote:
>
>> @@ -140,11 +143,15 @@
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi?rev=607245&view=rev
>> Backport version for 2.2.x of patch:
>> Trunk version of patch works
>> - +1: rpluem, niq
>> + +1: rpluem, niq, wrowe
>> niq: Provisional +1, but the error logging should be at a
>> consistent level (maybe WARNING?)
>> rpluem: Set it to ERROR in all cases as IMHO this should not
>> happen. If this level is too high we can reduce it later.
>> + wrowe: disagree with rpluem - it's incredibly disruptive to
>> admins
>> + to have their logs filled with noise - warning would be
>> ok,
>> + provided there's no more than one entry per failed
>> request.
>> + If their request would die outright, only then is
>> rpluem right.
>
> +1 to wrowe's comment. I was thinking the same, just not loudly
> enough to be the first to say so.
Ok, I am also fine with the WARNING level here. OTOH ERROR is consistent
with the other behaviour of mod_disk_cache where all other non fatal (= do
no cause the request to die), non DEBUG message also result in messages at
level ERROR. So maybe we should rework the error levels of all messages
in mod_disk_cache.
Furthermore I do not really expect these messages to appear often.
Bill, is your vote conditional on changing this to the WARNING level or
can this be back ported as is?
Regards
Rüdiger