[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] g_error considered harmful



Hi

In general I agree with the patch series dropping g_error() in favour
of normal GError reporting, so programs can cope with errors.

However, it removes the forced logging and it's too easy for the
caller to ignore them, making it hard to track down when something
goes wrong.

I think this is even more relevant, because libvirt-glib is logging
*tons* of normal/useless runtime messages, and now we are making
silent the error messages. I would strongly prefer the other way
around.

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau redhat com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 07:05:51PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau redhat com> wrote:
>> > This mail should be read as a "ping?" on this series :)
>>
>> /me lost the series, you didn't use the same title or messageid/replyto?
>
> Hmm, I did and it was properly threaded here. Though mailing list have this
> "do not duplicate messages sent both to me and the mailing list" feature
> enabled by default, so maybe that's what broke the threading here?
> Anyway, here is a link to the patches
> http://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2012-January/msg00593.html
>
> Christophe



-- 
Marc-André Lureau


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]