On Jan 24, 2011, at 1:18 PM, Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
> In my opinion this has been a problem for a very long time, and it
> would be better to have a correction that fits the majority of cases
> with a small code change now rather than wait for the perfect log
> system. These changes don't pr
On Jan 24, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Don Dwiggins wrote:
> I have a server that provides access to a database in the usual way,
> using adbapi to talk to an MSSQL server. Now, I'm facing the need to
> create an application that can access the server directly. (In addition
> to, not instead of.)
Why d
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Glyph Lefkowitz
wrote:
>
> On Jan 23, 2011, at 12:36 AM, Tom Davis wrote:
>
> Mean open ticket age: 1032 days
>
> Mean time between ticket creation and ticket resolution: 238 days
>
> Mean time spent in review: 83 days
>
>
> Wow. Adding "reduce these by at least o
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
>
> On Jan 23, 2011, at 12:55 AM, Tom Davis wrote:
>
> > But I'm drifting now, so shall drift in the direction of bed and pick
> things up tomorrow...
>
> I think this thread has reached a nice point of consensus, so rather than
> keep floodi
On 06:25 pm, jaroslaw.fedew...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>It would surely be nice to have a logger which flushes out, say, every
>2000 messages or every few seconds, whichever comes first (it would be
>a lot more filesystem efficient), suitable if you have a freaking lot
>of events, you need to log the
I have a server that provides access to a database in the usual way,
using adbapi to talk to an MSSQL server. Now, I'm facing the need to
create an application that can access the server directly. (In addition
to, not instead of.)
In the spirit of "write it once", I'd like to be able to "impo
On Jan 24, 2011, at 8:09 PM, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
> On 05:24 pm, jasonjwwilli...@gmail.com wrote:
>> If there's no objections the rest of today, I'll make sure the 4021
>> patch still applies and see what could be done as a test.
>
> I think it would be sad to lose the port starting
In my opinion this has been a problem for a very long time, and it
would be better to have a correction that fits the majority of cases
with a small code change now rather than wait for the perfect log
system. These changes don't preclude a better logger and way of
filtering these out in the future
On 05:24 pm, jasonjwwilli...@gmail.com wrote:
If there's no objections the rest of today, I'll make sure the 4021
patch still applies and see what could be done as a test.
I think it would be sad to lose the port starting up log messages.
Sure, they're a nuisance if you start and stop 50k port
If there's no objections the rest of today, I'll make sure the 4021
patch still applies and see what could be done as a test.
-J
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 3:40 AM, Phil Mayers wrote:
> On 01/24/2011 02:43 AM, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
>>
>> Personally I'd say 'false'. This is technically a change in
On 10:40 am, p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote:
>On 01/24/2011 02:43 AM, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
>>
>>Personally I'd say 'false'. This is technically a change in
>>behavior, but I don't think that we should make guarantees about
>>emitted log messages. Practically speaking, I've never seen any code
>>
On 01/24/2011 02:43 AM, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
>
> Personally I'd say 'false'. This is technically a change in
> behavior, but I don't think that we should make guarantees about
> emitted log messages. Practically speaking, I've never seen any code
> which would care about an unstructured log mes
12 matches
Mail list logo
