On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 01:25:46PM -0400, Amy Griffis wrote: > Taking a second look at the log level code and documentation, > there seems to be some confusion around the value of '0'. It's > not one of the defined log priorities, but it is mentioned in the > documentation on the website both as meaning "log everything" and > "no logging at all". > > In the code, there are times when it's accepted (for outputs), > rejected (for filters) and ignored (for the loglevel). For the > outputs, specifying level 0 is effectively the same as specifying > level 1. > > I'm wondering if there is any historical reason for the '0' > value, or if we could just do away with it completely? Well I think we should clean this up, yes it's a bit of a mess and I think that's the kind of things were we can clean things without really breaking compatibility. I would map it uniformly as same as 1, and clean up the documentation to remove any reference. I guess that's the best considering the current state. If you feel you can work out a patch, that would be great :-) Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxx | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/ -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list