From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] trace: refactor to support multiple env variables Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:48:28 -0500 Message-ID: <20110224194828.GA5616@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20110224142308.GA15356@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20110224142841.GD15477@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vsjvd1e9r.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20110224190258.GA4318@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vbp211alu.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Jonathan Nieder , Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Feb 24 20:48:38 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PshAz-0001OE-J9 for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 20:48:37 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755446Ab1BXTsb (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:48:31 -0500 Received: from xen6.gtisc.gatech.edu ([143.215.130.70]:46649 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753687Ab1BXTsa (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:48:30 -0500 Received: (qmail 27367 invoked by uid 111); 24 Feb 2011 19:48:29 -0000 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (99.108.226.0) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with ESMTPA; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:48:29 +0000 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:48:28 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vbp211alu.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:44:13AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:25:04AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > ... > > So I guess I'm not sure what your complaint is. > > There was no complaint. I wanted to see the reasoning behind the choices > you made spelled out (and later copied into developer docs). Oh. :) I'll write something up to go into Documentation/technical for my re-roll. And something should clearly go in Documentation/git.txt for users, too. > > I think I covered that pretty well above, but you lose the flexibility > > of pushing different trace types to different places if you want to. > > That statement illustrates the inflexibility that all packet traces going > to a same place rather clearly, doesn't it, though? That "two-tier" thing > was my primary concern. Sorry, I don't quite understand what you're saying here. -Peff