|
From: | Phil Holmes |
Subject: | Re: Various updates to reduce make doc output (issue 5727055) |
Date: | Thu, 15 Mar 2012 16:46:17 -0000 |
To: "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden>Cc: "Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden>; "Carl Sorensen" <address@hidden>; "Lily-Devel List" <address@hidden>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 3:06 PM Subject: Re: Various updates to reduce make doc output (issue 5727055)
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 08:59:53AM -0000, Phil Holmes wrote:Please see http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2407.Great!Can I please now quieten this warning using the explicit command line switch --quiet?huh? I'm sorry, but I think this points to a different lesson. If we explicitly throw away warnings with --quiet, then we'll miss seeing problems in lilypond. I don't think we need to see it on the command-line, but there should be *some* record of this warning *somewhere* (i.e. in a log file). - Graham
Aargh. I am _not_ throwing away warnings. I am hiding a _single_ warning in midi2ly. This only warns the user that the output may not be optimal. I am going to update the --help to make this clear. If anyone runs midi2ly with --quiet and then doesn't like the output, they can check the help, run it without --quiet or fix the bug I've raised. Honestly, there's no point in redirecting a warning that no-one wants to see to a logfile that no-one will read.
Check out the other logfiles for the other warnings if you don't believe me. Is anyone fixing http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2146 which has a far more detrimental effect?
Honestly, it is nit-picking like this that drives me crackers. Let's just go with hiding this during builds. Please?
-- Phil Holmes
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |