-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 113
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add logging levels #179
Add logging levels #179
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Joe Kutner <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Joe Kutner <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Joe Kutner <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Joe Kutner <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Joe Kutner <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Joe Kutner <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Joe Kutner <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Joe Kutner <[email protected]>
Looking great to me 😄 |
@@ -0,0 +1,134 @@ | |||
// Package logging implements the logger for the pack CLI. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is the intent that pack
would move to start using this implementation by having lifecycle
as a dependency so that there is no duplication (and maintenance overhead)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
idk. maybe we split the logging stuff out as its only lib?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@ekcasey what are your thoughts here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I considered the same thing way back when we began talking about a similar logger in lifecycle as we were using in pack. I think a separate repo might have some overhead with maintenance, but not sure if I like pack having to continue to depend on lifecycle...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we could consider this issue resolved. It seems like we are aligned on what the future would look like but not part of this issue.
Signed-off-by: Joe Kutner <[email protected]>
@sclevine @ekcasey Can you help figure out what I need to do to move this forward?
|
Signed-off-by: Joe Kutner <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice work!
Signed-off-by: Joe Kutner <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Joe Kutner <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Joe Kutner <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Joe Kutner <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Joe Kutner <[email protected]>
This is what it looks like in practice:
|
Signed-off-by: Joe Kutner <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Joe Kutner <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Joe Kutner <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Joe Kutner <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Joe Kutner <[email protected]>
@sclevine @ekcasey @ameyer-pivotal @jromero before i go any further, can you confirm that this is the along the lines of what we discussed?