Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] WIP: trace2: a new trace facility

From: Jonathan Nieder <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 17:05:28 -0800

Hi,

Jeff Hostetler wrote:

> This patch series contains a new trace2 facility that hopefully addresses
> the recent trace- and structured-logging-related discussions. The intent is
> to eventually replace the existing trace_ routines (or to route them to the
> new trace2_ routines) as time permits.

I've been running with these patches since last October.  A few
thoughts:

I like the API.

The logs are a bit noisy and especially wide.  For my use, the
function name is not too important since we can get that from the file
and line number.  Should we have a way to omit some fields, or is that
for post-processing?

We don't find the JSON easy to parse and would prefer a binary format.

When I apply the patches, Git complains about whitespace problems
(trailing whitespace, etc).

Aside from that kind of easily correctible issue (trailing
whitespace), I'd be in favor of taking these patches pretty much as-is
and making improvements in tree.  Any objections to that, or do you
have other thoughts on where this should go?

If that sounds reasonable to you, I can send a clean version of these
based against current "master".  If I understand correctly, then

 https://github.com/jeffhostetler/git

branch

 gvfs-trace2-v4

contains some improvements, so as a next step I'd try to extract those
as incremental patches on top.  What do you think?

Thanks,
Jonathan