From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B036431E82 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 03:35:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[none] autolearn=disabled Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Iemt5+utyXzz for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 03:35:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from yantan.tethera.net (yantan.tethera.net [199.188.72.155]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E43C5431FC2 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 03:35:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from remotemail by yantan.tethera.net with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vi0d4-0000cd-9s; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 07:35:02 -0400 Received: (nullmailer pid 6354 invoked by uid 1000); Sun, 17 Nov 2013 11:34:58 -0000 From: David Bremner To: Tomi Ollila , Jani Nikula , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] compact: provide user more information on after-compaction failures In-Reply-To: References: <1384362167-12740-1-git-send-email-tomi.ollila@iki.fi> <1384362167-12740-6-git-send-email-tomi.ollila@iki.fi> <871u2jnkai.fsf@nikula.org> <87y54rx8sf.fsf@unb.ca> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.16+167~g9838fe8 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 07:34:57 -0400 Message-ID: <8738mvz2fy.fsf@zancas.localnet> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 11:35:18 -0000 Tomi Ollila writes: > The log hook in it's current form is problematic as it doesn't provide > way to distinguish progress reporting from error reporting. Is this _more_ problematic than more output to stderr? > Currently > lib/database.cc writes error messages with fprintf(stderr, ...) everywhere. Sure. But I'm trying to understand why a partial fix isn't better than nothing. Is the argument just that the effort is wasted, or that the result is somehow less satisfactory than the status quo. > I suggest that this problem is fixed in one big sweep during 0.18 > development -- the suggestion Jani pastebin'd a few days ago is > a good one and I'm willing to take part of that development... > And now take this approach of fprintf()ing (basically I would > also ask developers using the library wait for 0.18 before starting > to use the compact functionality (if ever), as the we have yet > another soname bump with changing interface coming... I guess we can mark this interface as unstable for the moment? "Asking developers not to use it" sounds pretty bad. d