On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 02:25:02PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 06:43:38AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:58:56AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > > > This seems only to lead to excessive verbosity which seems > > > much more appropriate for logs than email. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > src/checks.c | 1 - > > > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/src/checks.c b/src/checks.c > > > index 3702d9a4b0fe..efcaff20219b 100644 > > > --- a/src/checks.c > > > +++ b/src/checks.c > > > @@ -316,7 +316,6 @@ static void set_server_check_status(struct check > > > *check, short status, const cha > > > > > > Warning("%s.\n", trash.str); > > > send_log(s->proxy, LOG_NOTICE, "%s.\n", trash.str); > > > - send_email_alert(s, LOG_NOTICE, "%s", trash.str); > > > > Just a question, shouldn't we keep it and send it as LOG_INFO instead ? > > That way users can choose whether to have them or not. Just a suggestion, > > otherwise I'm fine with this as well. > > Good idea, I'll re-spin. > > In the mean time could you look at the second patch of the series? > It is (currently) independent of this one.
Sorry, I wasn't clear, I did so and found it fine. I can merge it if you want but just like you I know that merging only parts of series causes more trouble than they solve. Willy
