Excuse me, but did I miss anyting? I haven't received any replies to
this topic except for one from Ben Collins-Sussmann. Where does this one
about the access hooks come from?
Before this gets even more confusing, please note that I've been working
on this issue during the last couple of days.
The traffic measurement feature that I originally suggested is already
implemented and works fine, turned out to be just a couple of lines.
As for the logging itself, I may not have a full overview yet, but I
suppose the best starting point is syslogd.
Logging to a syslogd as a first step would significiantly ease the other
suggestions (e.g. Apache-style access_log and error_log), provided that
the installed syslogd is not 90's itself and provides some sort of
filtering mechanisms and output to different kinds of destinations, as
is the case with syslog-ng, for example.
I'm not sure, though, to what extent such a solution would work under
Also, I haven't yet decided whether to build this logging feature only
into svnserve or make it accessible to the entire svn suite. Both
solutions need some considerations:
- to provide an effective logging for svnserve, the solution would need
to be able to trace which meesage has been caused by which connection.
Otherwise it doesn't make any sense, neither traffic measurement nor
backtracking of the users' actions would be possible. That's why I've
also introduced connection UUIDs in my working copy which are prepended
to every line of output. The existing logging functions don't
- on the other hand, would it be sensible to have to different logging
mechanisms, one for svnserve and one for the rest of subversion? I don't
think so. I guess it would be better to modify the existing SVN_ERR and
thereby implement syslog output automatically wherever "normal" logging
is done in current releases. No big deal.
As mentioned, I'm willing to implement this feature. Not that I'm not
forbidding anyone else to work on this feature, but that person should
know that it would be counter-productive for at least one of us. The
thing is, I'm going to be on a business trip from today (leaving in 30
minutes, to be precise), and for the next two weeks I won't be able to
follow the discussion.
First I thought it would be sensible to use the Apache logging
functions, but then I noticed that this would require far more Apache
sources to be included in Subversion than are at this time.
John Peacock schrieb:
> Brian W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
>> Would we really want to put the logging layer into svnserve? I
>> don't have a solution in mind ATM, but it *would* be nice to see
>> some generic mechanism that could be configured to log the various
>> commands run against a repository... maybe something like an access
>> hook or something?
> As this gets discussed, please keep in mind that some of us would love
> to run svnserve under daemontools:
> so for that purpose, just writing all logging to stdout is wholy
> sufficient. In particular, I don't care about setting a log level
> inside svnserve someplace; I can set multilog to filter (or even
> split) the messages before writing to a file.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Mon Feb 28 14:06:34 2005