Re: Feature request regarding --g-fatals-warnings

[Tim Janik <timj gtk org>]

On 30 Jul 2000, Owen Taylor wrote:

> 
> Tim Janik <timj@gtk.org> writes:
> 
> > > > note, that in many cases, successive warnings/criticals are
> > > > produced due to the first one failing, so often, if you don't
> > > > fix the first one, you get tons of bogus successors.
> > > 
> > > Well, I'm currently debugging gnome-libs 2.0 and every time I
> > > start a program I get this "you are using the devel branch of GTK+"
> > > warning and a couple more "foo() is deprecated" ones.
> > 
> > that's highly annoying i admit. we had that problem earlier for the canvas,
> > i had to s/g_warning/g_message/ on my own there. g_warning() is really
> > an inappropriate log-level for that, use g_message("WARNING:") instead if
> > you want to shout ;)
> > if you provide s/g_warning/g_message/ patches for such things in gtk,
> > i'll accept them in a second.
> 
> nonononoono.
> 
> If you want to change them to simply g_message(), that might
> be OK. but replcaing g_warning() with g_message("WARNING:")
> is obvious brain-damage. 

well fine, no "WARNING" in the message then. would you object to
g_message ("DEPRECATED: ....") btw? ;)

> If we don't want to trap warnings, then we should add
> --g-fatal-criticals. or --g-fatal-warnings=level.

we can't, for arguments that support the --arg=VAL syntax, we
also feature the --arg VAL syntax, and that's break argument
compatibility (having --g-fatal-criticals, or even --g-fatal-leve=VAL
would of course work).

> If warnings are meant to be trapped, then you should  
> change not-useful-to-trap warnings to g_message().

i supposed s/warnings are meant/warnings are not meant/, then your
statement makes sense to me ;)

> (And deprecated function warnings can be somewhat useful to trap, if
> you don't know where they are coming from.)
> 
> Regards,
>                                         Owen
> 

---
ciaoTJ