Excellent work Dave, I look forward to taking this new functionality through
the QA maze.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pcp-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pcp-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Dave Brolley
> Sent: Wednesday, 24 February 2016 7:01 AM
> To: PCP Mailing List <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [pcp] Multi-archive Contexts Getting Close to Merge
>
> ...
> As discussed on this mailing list, there are some tools for which
> older versions will be broken with respect to the handling of time
> indices when paired with a multi-archive-enabled version of libpcp.
> These tools will still work correctly when a single archive is
> specified. The tools in question are pmdumplog(1) and pmlogcheck(1).
> It has been suggested that perhaps these tools should be restricted to
> working against single archives going forward. I disagree. I believe
> that these tools could be updated to work with multi-archive contexts
> and I see no reason to penalize the users of these tools if that is
> the case.
I think there is an argument to say the use cases for pmdumplog and pmlogcheck
(and pmloglabel) are ones where knowing which archive you're processing is
important, so the convenience of the multi-archive abstraction is less
important ... but this is more of a religious issue than a technical one.
> * Whether to use a comma or a colon (or either?) to separate the
> names in the list passed to pmNewContext(3).
I'd vote for comma, simply to avoid confusion over the host: syntax we use in
some other places.
> * Whether to restrict pmdumplog(1) and pmlogcheck(1) to single
> archive contexts.
I'd be happy to see these restricted in the first instance, and then revisited
once we've shaken the core functionality down.
Once again, well done.
|