Re: [PATCH 2/2] trace2: randomize/timestamp trace2 targets

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mar 18, 2019, 01:40 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq1s357yfj.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190315204919.GF47591@google.com>

Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com> writes:

Show 16 quoted lines

> On 2019.03.15 13:43, Josh Steadmon wrote:
>> On 2019.03.14 00:49, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> > 
>> > On Thu, Mar 14 2019, Josh Steadmon wrote:
>> > 
>> > > When the value of a trace2 environment variable contains instances of
>> > > the string "%ISO8601%", expand them into the current UTC timestamp in
>> > > ISO 8601 format.
>> > 
>> > Any reason not to just support feeding the path to strbuf_addftime(), to
>> > e.g. support a daily/hourly log?
>> 
>> No reason not to. Seems reasonable to me.
>
> Although as Junio says elsewhere in this thread, it's possible that we
> may want to support fields other than timestamps.

Yup.

On the other hand.

After seeing that the possibilities got discussed on the list, and that nobody seems to be very much demanding customizability (I am taking Ævar's mention of strftime as a mere "if we were doing an optional timestamp, why not do so in an even more customizable way?" nice-to-have, not as a "we must allow hourly or daily log, adjusting for each host's needs" must-have), I actually am fine if we declare that we've chosen the hard-coded "if it is a directory, use the last portion of sid to create with O_EXCL (and if we fail, append a '.%d' counter to retry)" or something simple. Which I think takes us closer to your earlier and unpublished draft, but this time we can say that we omitted customizability after making sure that there is not much interest---so I think it was worth it.

People who really want customizability can and are welcome to argue otherwise and then I may change my assessment of the level of interest in customizability, but the above is my current feeling.

Thanks.