Rockbox.org home
release
dev builds
extras
themes manual
wiki
device status forums
mailing lists
IRC bugs
patches
dev guide



Rockbox mail archive

Subject: RE: logf enhancements

RE: logf enhancements

From: RaeNye <raenye_at_netvision.net.il>
Date: 2006-06-03

Hello? This is the internet.
Get ready for people who use non-standard grammar or syntax, either
intentionally or by mistake (you have a typo as well).
I personally consider people who think they're 31337 (aka eLiTe) are
immature, but let them express themselves how they feel anyway.
Note: Jonathan is not the case here. I don't think his mail could be
misinterpreted. Or that he pretends to be 31337.

And in reply to your non-nitpicking question, I don't see a point in
compiling one's patch on all 20+ platform/build combinations.
Once you believe it's working on your platform, get it commited and let the
build server compile it all.
The committer is then supposed to check after a short time that the builds
are all green. We're having a revision control system here, after all.

P.S.
English is not my mother tongue.

-----Original Message-----
From: rockbox-dev-bounces@cool.haxx.se
[mailto:rockbox-dev-bounces@cool.haxx.se] On Behalf Of
postmaster@diffenbach.org
Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 4:25 PM
To: Rockbox development
Subject: Re: logf enhancements

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:
> hey,
> 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
> nicer,,, so ive attached a patch with the my work so far hopefully to
> get some feedback...
> (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
> monitoring..
> 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 19:18:55 2006


Page was last modified "Jan 10 2012" The Rockbox Crew
aaa