On Thu, 2017-06-08 at 13:39 +0900, Tomasz Figa wrote: > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Hirokazu Honda <hiroh@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I completely understand bitmask method now. > > I agree to the idea, but it is necessary to change the specification of > > a debug parameter. > > (We probably need to change a document about that?) > > For example, there is maybe a user who set a debug parameter 3. > > The user assume that logs whose levels are less than 4 are shown. > > However, after the bitmask method is adopted, someday the logs whose > > level is 1 or 2 are only shown, not 3 level logs are not shown. > > This will be confusing to users. > > I think I have to agree with Hirokazu here. Even though it's only > about debugging, there might be some automatic testing systems that > actually rely on certain values here. I think it's a non-argument. If there automated systems that rely on specific levels, then changing the levels of individual messages could also cause those automated systems to fail.
