----- Original Message -----
From: "Subhendu Ghosh" sghosh@redhat.com To: "VDSM Project Development" vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 4:57:00 AM Subject: Re: Proposal to add message IDs to vdsm.log
Need to solicit responses on the list. Dan, Saggi, Edu, Federico, please reply with your thoughts on this.
We already know that in the next 2 versions the code is going to change *a lot*. So it's not clear what the value of doing this at the present moment is (adds pains for something that will change 10 times in the next year or so).
If you are going with codes, it makes sense to add msg ids from the beginning, not as a retrofit. Yes, some message numbers may not be used when code changes discards a message, the overall process should be more consistent.
My concern about this is that to be useful we must commit to the meaning of the IDs and in a case where not only the code changes a lot but also the internal flow changes (even though the APIs are consistent) we'll often need to provide new IDs (and remove old ones where needed). Therefore I feel that I won't be using IDs at all if I need to check what vdsm version I'm using to grep for an ID in vdsm.log.
We could postpone the message IDs into the future. In my opinion the only problem at the moment is bad timing. If there are plans to implement also an application that is going to collect the message IDs, analyze them and deal with their constant change then I'll agree on having them now.
Why not put our effort into more urgent matters as for example make vdsm/vdsmd.in 100% compatible with fedora using better tools. (PS. if anyone is interested in this please contact me)
We should maintain a list of changes that we would like to make so that we can discuss them and rate them.