From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 20 19:43:43 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34CD716A400 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2007 19:43:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jrhett@svcolo.com) Received: from kininvie.sv.svcolo.com (kininvie.sv.svcolo.com [64.13.135.12]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E5AD13C4AE for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2007 19:43:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jrhett@svcolo.com) Received: from [10.67.240.119] (public-wireless.sc.svcolo.com [64.13.143.30]) (authenticated bits=0) by kininvie.sv.svcolo.com (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id l5KJhgin020423; Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:43:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jrhett@svcolo.com) In-Reply-To: References: <20070620151306.GM45993@therub.org> <20070620115023971992.49dc4616@kjsl.com> <20070620164749.GN45993@therub.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <44A91A3E-96EA-46F3-ABE4-01C4662B5A5F@svcolo.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jo Rhett Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:43:36 -0700 To: Kurt Buff X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-Spam-Score: undef - jrhett@svcolo.com is whitelisted. X-CanItPRO-Stream: default X-Canit-Stats-ID: 114488 - 4f4a1afdd063 X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 64.13.135.12 Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: how much beer do I need to get this patch applied? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 19:43:43 -0000 On Jun 20, 2007, at 10:40 AM, Kurt Buff wrote: > On 6/20/07, Dan Rue wrote: >> If it's too broken to complain, then the behavior is the same with or >> without this patch. > > Indeed, which is why this patch might not be such a good idea. In this > case, absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence, which is > contrary to the general case. You appear to be completely confused about what this change does. All it does is TO ALLOW (not require) the OP to disable the spurious and empty output from successful cron jobs. If I get a message every day saying "No output", how do I know when a failure has occurred? This patch changes nothing about that behavior. Getting no message is equally useless in the situation where no output was generated *AND* the result code is positive. The more likely is that the OP starts deleting the messages unread each day and thus never sees an actual failure report. > Perhaps the OP needs a better way of dealing with the notifications > than simply turning them off. How do you suggest dealing with 1200-1800 messages which simply say "no output" each day? The commands were successful, and the processes had no output. 1. In that load level I won't notice one missing, so absence of the e- mail is not useful. 2. In that load level I can't possibly read them all. So actual reports of failure will be overlooked. 3. Actual errors *will* be reported, and *will be read* if I don't have to delete thousands of non-errors. -- Jo Rhett senior geek Silicon Valley Colocation Support Phone: 408-400-0550