Hi Nathan, > Can we relax this to say "no substantive changes"? > If we fix a typo or even wording: > "[1234] lustre has dropped the ball and erased all your data" to > "[1234] an irrecoverable error has occurred and erased all filesystem data" > doesn't seem to me that it should require a new message number. Parsing > tools should > just check the number and not worry about the exact contents of the message. > I think that's the whole point of having a [number] in the first place.
Perhaps, but what about a typo fix, for example: -Lustre [ID 1234]: Server handling error on servr [EMAIL PROTECTED]: +Lustre [ID 1234]: Server handling error on server [EMAIL PROTECTED]: transaction 11602746/0, opcode 42 returned -2 Looks innocent enough, except the web-based parser may be depending on the word "servr" to pick out the "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" NID. I think to avoid problems like this, we need to ban reuse across the board. I don't think Lustre messages are changed often enough that we need to worry about running out of numbers. Cheers, Jody > > I'll agree that for messages like > > Lustre [ID 1234]: Server handling error on server [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > transaction 11602746/0, opcode 42 returned -2 > > we can't change the keyword preceding and data items _______________________________________________ Lustre-devel mailing list [email protected] https://mail.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-devel
