On 12/04/2014 05:41 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
What if the patch is reworked to leave the current trace-all-the-time
mode in place, and we iterate on each script to make tracing conditional
as we add proper logging?
I have run [1] over patchset 15 to keep whatever was originally using
-x tracing
Hi
I am very sympathetic to this view. We have a patch in hand that improves the
situation. We also have disagreement about the ideal situation.
I +2'd Ian's patch because it makes things work better than they do now. If we
can arrive at an ideal solution later, great, but the more I think
Excerpts from Chris Jones's message of 2014-12-03 02:47:30 -0800:
Hi
I am very sympathetic to this view. We have a patch in hand that improves the
situation. We also have disagreement about the ideal situation.
I +2'd Ian's patch because it makes things work better than they do now. If
Hi
On 3 Dec 2014, at 18:41, Clint Byrum cl...@fewbar.com wrote:
What if the patch is reworked to leave the current trace-all-the-time
mode in place, and we iterate on each script to make tracing conditional
as we add proper logging?
+1
Cheers,
--
Chris Jones
On 12/02/2014 03:46 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
1) Conform all o-r-c scripts to the logging standards we have in
OpenStack, or write new standards for diskimage-builder and conform
them to those standards. Abolish non-conditional xtrace in any script
conforming to the standards.
Honestly in the
Excerpts from Ian Wienand's message of 2014-12-02 11:22:31 -0800:
On 12/02/2014 03:46 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
1) Conform all o-r-c scripts to the logging standards we have in
OpenStack, or write new standards for diskimage-builder and conform
them to those standards. Abolish non-conditional
On 12/03/2014 09:30 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
I for one find the idea of printing every cp, cat, echo and ls command out
rather frustratingly verbose when scanning logs from a normal run.
I for one find this ongoing discussion over a flag whose own help says
-x -- turn on tracing not doing the
/2014 12:29 PM, Sullivan, Jon Paul wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Ben Nemec [mailto:openst...@nemebean.com]
Sent: 26 November 2014 17:03
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [diskimage-builder] Tracing levels for
scripts (119023
List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [diskimage-builder] Tracing levels for
scripts (119023)
On 11/25/2014 10:58 PM, Ian Wienand wrote:
Hi,
My change [1] to enable a consistent tracing mechanism for the many
scripts diskimage-builder runs during its build
-builder] Tracing levels for
scripts (119023)
On 11/25/2014 10:58 PM, Ian Wienand wrote:
Hi,
My change [1] to enable a consistent tracing mechanism for the many
scripts diskimage-builder runs during its build seems to have hit a
stalemate.
I hope we can agree that the current
-Original Message-
From: Ben Nemec [mailto:openst...@nemebean.com]
Sent: 26 November 2014 17:03
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [diskimage-builder] Tracing levels for
scripts (119023)
On 11/25/2014 10:58 PM, Ian Wienand
On 11/25/2014 10:58 PM, Ian Wienand wrote:
Hi,
My change [1] to enable a consistent tracing mechanism for the many
scripts diskimage-builder runs during its build seems to have hit a
stalemate.
I hope we can agree that the current situation is not good. When
trying to develop with
Hi,
My change [1] to enable a consistent tracing mechanism for the many
scripts diskimage-builder runs during its build seems to have hit a
stalemate.
I hope we can agree that the current situation is not good. When
trying to develop with diskimage-builder, I find myself constantly
going and
13 matches
Mail list logo
