Re: [PR] Using standard 'OOM' instead of 'Out of Memory'
Hi, On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 07:36:20PM +0530, Suvarna Pattayil wrote: > Hi, > > Yes, it does make sense. The original issue actually pertains to making the > messages uniform. But why ? Most of them are just partial messages that are combined in larger and more detailed messages, like "parsing blah: out of memory error while compiling regular expression in ACL foo". > To do this, a better approach is to see the individual .c > files. Each one of then have a different format of the error message and > try to unify those. I've just reviewed them again and no, they're very consistent. It's written "out of memory" in the middle of a sentence or "Out of memory." when sent as a single sentence. It's pretty possible that there are a few exceptions to this, but that's what I'm seeing by reviewing your patch. Thus at first glance there's not even any reason to change capitalization there. Regards, Willy
Re: [PR] Using standard 'OOM' instead of 'Out of Memory'
Hi, Yes, it does make sense. The original issue actually pertains to making the messages uniform. To do this, a better approach is to see the individual .c files. Each one of then have a different format of the error message and try to unify those. Thanks, Suvarna 'SuvP' Pattayil On Fri, 24 Sep, 2021, 7:10 pm Willy Tarreau, wrote: > Hello, > > On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 05:23:01PM +0200, PR Bot wrote: > > Dear list! > > > > Author: SuvP > > Number of patches: 1 > > > > This is an automated relay of the Github pull request: > >Using standard 'OOM' instead of 'Out of Memory' > > > > Patch title(s): > >Using standard 'OOM' instead of 'Out of Memory' > > Thanks but no, I'm sorry, I'd even do the opposite. While "OOM" is > commonly known to system developers or sysadmins, it's not always > something trivial to other users, especially those coming from a > network background where this is not something common at all, and > who have to deal with load balancers. We try to make our error > messages clear to help people quickly fix an issue without having > to search for an explanation on the net, and I'm definitely against > this change for this reason. > > Thanks, > Willy >
Re: [PR] Using standard 'OOM' instead of 'Out of Memory'
Hello, On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 05:23:01PM +0200, PR Bot wrote: > Dear list! > > Author: SuvP > Number of patches: 1 > > This is an automated relay of the Github pull request: >Using standard 'OOM' instead of 'Out of Memory' > > Patch title(s): >Using standard 'OOM' instead of 'Out of Memory' Thanks but no, I'm sorry, I'd even do the opposite. While "OOM" is commonly known to system developers or sysadmins, it's not always something trivial to other users, especially those coming from a network background where this is not something common at all, and who have to deal with load balancers. We try to make our error messages clear to help people quickly fix an issue without having to search for an explanation on the net, and I'm definitely against this change for this reason. Thanks, Willy
[PR] Using standard 'OOM' instead of 'Out of Memory'
Dear list! Author: SuvP Number of patches: 1 This is an automated relay of the Github pull request: Using standard 'OOM' instead of 'Out of Memory' Patch title(s): Using standard 'OOM' instead of 'Out of Memory' Link: https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/pull/1397 Edit locally: wget https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/pull/1397.patch && vi 1397.patch Apply locally: curl https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/pull/1397.patch | git am - Description: Refers to #1025 Using well known word 'OOM' instead of 'Out of Memory' This will reduce binary size as well. Have tried to keep context wherever required. Instructions: This github pull request will be closed automatically; patch should be reviewed on the haproxy mailing list (haproxy@formilux.org). Everyone is invited to comment, even the patch's author. Please keep the author and list CCed in replies. Please note that in absence of any response this pull request will be lost.
