[GEM-dev] using logpost(3) for version message

IOhannes m zmoelnig zmoelnig at iem.at
Thu Sep 29 17:23:36 CEST 2011


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2011-09-29 17:05, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>
>> so you are saying that there is a loglevel between post() and
>> verbose(0)? how come?
> 
> 
> Because that's the way it is, and that the way that you insisted it be
> against Miller and my objections.  You insisted that verbose() post with
> a +4 on the log level.

since i cannot remember such a thing (even after reading up the
discussion on verbose() again), i would very much like you to give a
reference for my "insistance" and your (and miller's ) objections.

what i do remember, is that i i wanted verbose(3) to be more important
than verbose(5), and that verbose(0) is less important than post().

the latter is probably the reason for "+4" [1], but my intention would
never have been to have a _gap_ between post() and verbose(0).

post() should be verbose(-1), and not verbose(-2).

the problem probably came from removing some named error loglevel, and
due to the confusion between named loglevels and numbered loglevels.


ffgasmdr
IOhannes


[1] http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/2011-02/016578.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk6EjXIACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvRSQQCg3deI/7l+xVfZmTInblrY6OYt
BasAn349IhRl9wVJKC5eS6eugaFUSDO3
=zafq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3636 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/gem-dev/attachments/20110929/0b35c88f/attachment.bin>


More information about the GEM-dev mailing list