this is a taste question: no, I don't consider these logs as junk, and I'm not the only one but I can understand that some other people have another taste: you're not the only one
we're all right: we just need to be tolerant on other's taste the fact that some people eventually treat that with a parser, and are hit even harder than human review then take time to report (and get the hard feedback), is just a way to ask for a new feature that was never asked before = well structured data about shaded content (beyond Maven console log) I'd be happy to work on the structured data: is there work in progress somewhere? but in parallel, please don't block the configurable verbosity (DEBUG by default vs INFO for people who want it) for shade as it is a reasonable compromise to adapt to different taste. Once we have the structured data, yes, we can promote it. On 2026/09/08 17:08:22 Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > On Tue, Sep 8, 2026 at 11:20 AM Hervé Boutemy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > you call a human looking at logs "parsing"? > > > > is it ideal? no > > but making users life harder is not the right answer while working on more > > ambitious options > > when this simple parameter can help soft transitioning > > > > No, but that is not what is being discussed here. The workflow that > was broken involved libraries and code that reads the logs, not > people. > > This all started because this excess log junk was getting in the way > of humans who were trying to analyze the logs for problems. > > -- > Elliotte Rusty Harold > [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
