Merge lp:~chipaca/snappy/log-command-failure into lp:~snappy-dev/snappy/snappy-moved-to-github
| Status: | Merged |
|---|---|
| Approved by: | John Lenton on 2015-05-18 |
| Approved revision: | 463 |
| Merged at revision: | 461 |
| Proposed branch: | lp:~chipaca/snappy/log-command-failure |
| Merge into: | lp:~snappy-dev/snappy/snappy-moved-to-github |
| Prerequisite: | lp:~chipaca/snappy/no-more-log |
| Diff against target: |
14 lines (+4/-0) 1 file modified
cmd/snappy/main.go (+4/-0) |
| To merge this branch: | bzr merge lp:~chipaca/snappy/log-command-failure |
| Related bugs: |
| Reviewer | Review Type | Date Requested | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sergio Schvezov | 2015-05-08 | Approve on 2015-05-18 | |
|
Review via email:
|
|||
Commit Message
Log command failures.
| Michael Vogt (mvo) wrote : | # |
Just one quick question, do we log each mistyped command this way?
On 8 May 2015 19:32:25 CEST, John Lenton <email address hidden> wrote:
>John Lenton has proposed merging lp:~chipaca/snappy/log-command-failure
>into lp:snappy with lp:~chipaca/snappy/no-more-log as a prerequisite.
>
>Commit message:
>Log command failures.
>
>Requested reviews:
> Snappy Developers (snappy-dev)
>
>For more details, see:
>https:/
>--
>Your team Snappy Developers is requested to review the proposed merge
>of lp:~chipaca/snappy/log-command-failure into lp:snappy.
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
| John Lenton (chipaca) wrote : | # |
May 8 20:45:05 fogey ./snappy-
May 8 20:45:21 fogey ./snappy-
May 8 20:45:31 fogey ./snappy-
May 8 20:45:41 fogey ./snappy-
May 8 20:45:47 fogey ./snappy-
So, before, yes.
But not now.
| Michael Vogt (mvo) wrote : | # |
Thanks and sorry for being difficult - I presume we also log "snappy install typo" type failures still? Might be a ok trade-off for the simplicity of the approach though :)
| John Lenton (chipaca) wrote : | # |
Yes, those would still get logged.
As you say, keeps things simple.
| Snappy Tarmac (snappydevtarmac) wrote : | # |
There are additional revisions which have not been approved in review. Please seek review and approval of these new revisions.


Looks and feels like the right way to do it!