On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 10:39:53AM -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 03:55:11PM +0200, Victor Toso wrote: > > > > > > > > Not really worth all that discussion, your patch is ok :) > > > > > > Ah, I liked the discusison mostly because this would be a spice <-> > > > spice-gtk communication bug and I'm not sure either if we should go for > > > CRITICAL or WARNING messages in such cases. > > > > > > I mean, in the past, for spice server, there was discussion about when > > > to assert(). The result was that only when it would be a bug inside the > > > component (never on client's input/configuration for instance) > > > > > > Anyway, thanks for the discussion :) > > > > To tie this in with the logging discussion, you can read the latest > > comment from ebassi in this blog post about g_log_structured ;) > > > > https://blog.gtk.org/2017/05/04/logging-and-more/ > > > > Christophe > > > > Wrong thread? Looks like the structured logging would be more > appropriate in Chistophe D thread. Nope, the comment I refer to « Warnings (and criticals) are meant to be used for programmer error and internal state consistency checks — and the expectation is that anything that follows a warning is undefined behaviour. Personally, I prefer asserting much more than just warning, because that catches real programmer errors, but warnings usually have more understandable messages. » Christophe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel