On 06/28/2017 12:57 AM, Hirokazu Honda wrote: > Hi, > > According to patch work, this patch are not approved yet and its > status are "Changes Requested." > What changes are necessary actually? > If there is no necessary change, can you approve this patch? I was considering to have more fine grained control by changing the debug parameter to a bitmask. But after thinking about it a bit more I decided that this patch is OK after all. I'll pick it up the next time I prepare a pull request. Regards, Hans > > Best, > Hirokazu Honda > > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, 2017-06-08 at 14:24 +0900, Tomasz Figa wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> [] >>>> 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. >> >> Right. No worries. >>
