Alex Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> If you need > instead of >= why not use this logger and keep the >> default logger as it is - I know this may be inconvenient but the >> way the logger works right now seems to be appropriate for most >> people, or we would have had more complaints. > > Not sure this is the kind of thing people complain about. The code > was backwards from the first implementation in June to when I fixed > in it December, and I don't know if anyone complained about it.
True. Maybe nobody is using -quiet or -verbose? Anyway, don't read my comments as a -1 or something. It seems as if many people are happy with the current logging, but maybe they just don't complain because they wouldn't care, never thought about it or similar ... Stefan
