+1 not worth the effort in established projects using Sling IMO. Regards,
Timothee Le mar. 2 avr. 2019 à 11:59, Julian Sedding <[email protected]> a écrit : > 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 > > > > > > > > >
