Hi Patrick, On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 11:02:50PM -0400, Patrick Hemmer wrote: (...) > Hadn't really thought about the best way to solve it until now. I like > the per-line suppression more than the @BEGIN/@END one. The only other > way I can think of doing this is by having a config directive such as: > ignore-warnings reqrep_use_backend > Which would suppress all occurrences of that specific warning. But then > the warning message itself would need some sort of identifier on it so > we knew what argument to pass to 'ignore-warnings' > > I'll play with the patch tomorrow, see how manageable it is. > > But really, this is a trivial matter. I'd be OK with whatever is decided.
I think that what would be the sanest approach would be to hide the warnings using -q or "quiet" and only have a summary at the end such as : 264 warnings silenced. That way if you're used to a certain number, your attention can still be caught by a growing number. However to be clear, I really don't want to remove the warning you're hitting because people *are* writing odd configs whenever such warnings are not emitted. We need to add another one which is missing for http-req vs use_backend BTW. I've see a series of wrong configs in a row, all caused by the absence of this warning. Regards, Willy
