On Sunday 06 May 2007 4:06:18 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 6 May 2007 16:00:56 -0400 > > Dan Meltzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Er, making elog logged by default would not solve the "requires an > > > explicit read" problem. Making elog require an explicit read would > > > be far too annoying because most elog notices are noise. We've been > > > over this already. > > > > Not if one filters it properly. ELOG_CLASSES="warn error" sounds > > like a sane default to me. > > So you want users to have to explicitly acknowledge all ewarn notices? > Now *that*'s a way of making the system useless by overusing it.
Err, warn notices are supposed to be important warnings. If they are not it sounds like a good job for QA. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
