I would tend to agree, let's keep things as they are.

Thanks,

Robert

On Tue, 2019-04-02 at 13:07 +0200, Timothee Maret wrote:
> +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
> > > > 
> > > > 

Reply via email to