Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] unpack-trees: add performance tracing

[Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 8:44 PM Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 11:32 AM Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 8:19 PM Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com> wrote:
> > > I'm looking at adding code to my SLOG (better name suggestions welcome)
> > > patch series to eventually replace the existing git_trace facility.
> >
> > Complement maybe. Replace, please no. I'd rather not stare at json messages.
>
> From the sidelines: We'd only need one logging infrastructure in place, as the
> formatting would be done as a later step? For local operations we'd certainly
> find better formatting than json, and we figured that we might end up desiring
> ProtocolBuffers[1] instead of JSon, so if it would be easy to change
> the output of
> the structured logging easily that would be great.

These trace messages are made for human consumption. Granted
occasionally we need some processing but I find one liners mostly
suffice. Now we turn these into something made for machines, turning
people to second citizens. I've read these messages reformatted for
human, it's usually too verbose even if it's reformatted.

> But AFAICT these series are all about putting the sampling points into the
> code base, so formatting would be orthogonal to it?

It's not just sampling points. There's things like index id being
shown in the message for example. I prefer to keep free style format
to help me read. There's also things like indentation I do here to
help me read. Granted you could do all that with scripts and stuff,
but will we pass around in mail  dumps of json messages to be decoded
locally?

> Stefan
>
> [1] https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/



-- 
Duy