On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Well, that might be true for some of them indeed. I was thinking about our use case, which relies on particular numbers to get expected verbosity levels not caring about particular messages. I guess the break all or none rule is going to apply here, so we should do the bitmap conversion indeed. :) On the other hand, I think it would be still preferable to do the conversion in a separate patch. Best regards, Tomasz
