I appreciate the hard work you've done and look forward to the
incorporation of your patch.
However, you indicate that you haven't completed testing yet ("the
patch [...] might not compile without that"; assurance that the patch
won't break compiles wold be reassuring.
Also, it would be easier to appreciate if your email employed standard
spelling and punctuation.
Especially for our colleagues whose native languages are not English,
figuring out "i" ("I"), "u" ("you"), "iv" or "ive" ("I've"), "r"
("are"), "rekon" ("reckon"), "coz" ("because"), "wont" ("won't"), and
",,," ("..." unnecessary ellipses which should be replaced with
periods) makes understanding your email unnecessarily difficult.
Jonathan Gordon wrote:
> last week i got the idea of getting logf used in the standard build in
> the hope that it could be used to trace some of the painful bugs (i.e
> wierd playback issues), so iv started work on making logf a bit
> so ive attached a patch with the my work so far hopefully to get some
> (i know we r in the freeze, but i rekon if this is used it might help
> speed up the freeze....)
> stuff ive changed so far:
> removed some ROCKBOX_HAS_LOGF defines (u should still define it if u
> want to test out the patch coz it might not compile without that
> defined just yet)
> added syslogf which is supposed to replace logf. the difference is
> syslog allows a level for the log message.
> the level is a combination of the subsystem (main thread, playback,
> etc), and a error level warning, error, info, etc).
> the idea with the levels is that errors with less severity then your
> choice wont get logged, and even if the severity is higher than your
> level, it will only get logged if its one of the sub-systems your
> so, all that is left to do is remove the rest of the ROCKBOX_HAS_LOGF
> defines, add a nice log viewer and get the rest of rockbox using it...
> so yeah... whatcha think?
Received on Sat Jun 3 16:25:17 2006