On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 07:42:59AM -0700, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Because I jumped the gun, for which I apologize.
Err, as best I can tell, you committed to trunk and that's a
commit THEN review procedure. And you emailed about it on dev.
No harm
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011, Henrik Krohns wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 07:42:59AM -0700, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Because I jumped the gun, for which I apologize.
Err, as best I can tell, you committed to trunk and that's a
commit THEN review procedure.
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 05:00:46PM -0500, Michael Parker wrote:
On Jul 24, 2011, at 2:55 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011, Michael Parker wrote:
On Jul 24, 2011, at 12:04 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011, Michael Parker wrote:
How is this change different
On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 10:04 +0300, Henrik Krohns wrote:
On Jul 24, 2011, at 2:55 PM, John Hardin wrote:
My change gives very basic elapsed time stats only if a specific
debugging
channel is enabled. I view it as equivalent to the rules debug channel
logging the text that the rule
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011, Henrik Krohns wrote:
Why isn't this discussed in a bug so we can have a proper vote and code
review?
Because I jumped the gun, for which I apologize.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174
Because I jumped the gun, for which I apologize.
Err, as best I can tell, you committed to trunk and that's a commit THEN
review procedure. And you emailed about it on dev. No harm no foul.
Regards,
KAM
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Because I jumped the gun, for which I apologize.
Err, as best I can tell, you committed to trunk and that's a commit THEN
review procedure. And you emailed about it on dev. No harm no foul.
That's what I understood to be the case as well.
--
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Was performance benchmarked before and after this change?
No, but do we care that much about performance when debug rules are turned
on?
The impact on a production install should be almost unnoticeable. When
debug of this channel is not
How is this change different from what is provided in the HitFreqsRuleTiming
plugin?
Seems like we have plugin call support for this, do we really need this change?
Maybe a more user friendly plugin instead.
I'm -.9 on this change as is.
Michael
On Jul 24, 2011, at 10:32 AM, John Hardin
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011, Michael Parker wrote:
How is this change different from what is provided in the HitFreqsRuleTiming
plugin?
_that's_ what I couldn't remember.
Sorry for the dupe effort, I just couldn't remember that plugin and wasn't
able to get the right combination of keywords for
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011, Michael Parker wrote:
How is this change different from what is provided in the
HitFreqsRuleTiming plugin?
...okay, that took about five seconds to find once I was reminded of the
name... :(
One thing that immediately leaps
On Jul 24, 2011, at 12:04 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011, Michael Parker wrote:
How is this change different from what is provided in the
HitFreqsRuleTiming plugin?
...okay, that took about five seconds to find once I was reminded of
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011, Michael Parker wrote:
On Jul 24, 2011, at 12:04 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011, Michael Parker wrote:
How is this change different from what is provided in the
HitFreqsRuleTiming plugin?
The plugin is a lot heavier-weight and provides a lot more analysis
On Jul 24, 2011, at 2:55 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011, Michael Parker wrote:
On Jul 24, 2011, at 12:04 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011, Michael Parker wrote:
How is this change different from what is provided in the
HitFreqsRuleTiming plugin?
The plugin is
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011, Michael Parker wrote:
On Jul 24, 2011, at 2:55 PM, John Hardin wrote:
My change gives very basic elapsed time stats only if a specific
debugging channel is enabled. I view it as equivalent to the rules
debug channel logging the text that the rule matched. This sort of
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011, Michael Parker wrote:
As someone who has to delve into this code often enough to get sweaty
palms and the shakes when edits are mentioned I propose we stick with
the plugin call.
Reverted.
Modified:
Was performance benchmarked before and after this change?
Daryl
On 23/07/2011 5:41 PM, jhar...@apache.org wrote:
Author: jhardin
Date: Sat Jul 23 21:41:27 2011
New Revision: 1150225
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1150225view=rev
Log:
Add per-rule timing (debug ruletimes channel) for
17 matches
Mail list logo
