On Mon, 08 Oct 2007, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> Karl Fogel wrote:
> > "Hyrum K. Wright" <hyrum_wright@mail.utexas.edu> writes:
> >> My relatively simple and incomprehensive testing on the case of plain
> >> 'svn up' shows:
> >> [08/Oct/2007:13:21:11 -0500] jrandom update '/' r3 unknown
> >
> > That's all I needed to know, thanks; it looks good.
> >
> > Would it go against logfile tradition to have the depth field say
> > "depth=unknown", "depth=infinity", etc, instead of just being the lone
> > word for the depth?
> >
> > The other fields kind of explain themselves, but "unknown" could mean
> > anything, and it's going to be the common case. (The word "files"
> > isn't going to be any more enlightening on its own, for that matter.)
> >
> > We're about to send a lot of admins scrambling for the reference
> > manual every time they parse these logs. We could avoid that...
>
> Looking at the other Apache logs on my system, I don't see any field
> labels embedded in the log entries. I'm +0 on adding the labels, but I
> don't have much of an admin-y perspective to the question.
>
> In related news, do we actually document the log format anywhere?
Nope (though, I assume the books will get it eventually). The Subversion
1.3 release notes <http://subversion.tigris.org/svn_1.3_releasenotes.html>
just indicate how to turn it on.
Describing the contents of the SVN-ACTION Apache environment variable
would certainly be useful, especially given that it's grown to include
quite a bit more content than it did in the initial 1.3 release.
Alternate, we might want to split the details into other Apache environment
variables (in the "SVN-" scope).
--
Daniel Rall
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Mon Oct 8 21:05:40 2007