I also don't think it's worth the effort. I see no tangible benefit, but I do see the difficulty this would cause for operational aspects of existing users.
Regards Julian On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 11:09 AM Stefan Seifert <[email protected]> wrote: > > personally i'm not sure if it's really worth to rename the log file. > naming it "error.log" is not uncommon in other systems as well, and i assume > that on most production systems it's not used to log to INFO level but only > for warnings, errors and so on. > > and the downstream changes required for this are huge - infrastructure > automation/devops tooling, documentation, training materials and so on. > > stefan > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Robert Munteanu [mailto:[email protected]] > >Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 10:42 AM > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: [DISCUSS][SERIOUS] Rename error.log to sling.log? > > > >Hi, > > > >In yesterday's email conversation Roy Teeuwen suggested that we rename > >the error.log file with sling.log or status.log, with multiple others > >supporting the sling.log name. > > > >I think we should discuss this in more depth. Some information I > >collected from the previous threads: > > > >- error.log is probably named following the httpd convention (and uses > >many httpd-compatible modifiers/placeholders) > >- renaming will negatively impact consumes, e.g. scripts/devops > >processes > >- for Sling, documentation and (probably) integration tests should be > >updated > > > >Thoughts? > > > >Thanks, > > > >Robert > > > > >
