From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from gandharva.secretlabs.de ([78.46.147.237])
	by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <holger+bitbake@freyther.de>) id 1RK3AE-0001wa-SH
	for bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org;
	Sat, 29 Oct 2011 09:17:10 +0200
Received: from [192.168.1.250] (91-65-246-230-dynip.superkabel.de
	[91.65.246.230])
	by gandharva.secretlabs.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6BC411B10C03
	for <bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org>;
	Sat, 29 Oct 2011 07:02:16 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <4EABA59F.5040204@freyther.de>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 09:05:03 +0200
From: Holger Freyther <holger+bitbake@freyther.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
	rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20111010 Iceowl/1.0b2 Icedove/3.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org
References: <1319853466-10277-1-git-send-email-kergoth@gmail.com>
	<CABcZANm4C9_xcYCcjZHXx2PKTQy12cH=3c0ukgCjcRFji_3+jQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZANm4C9_xcYCcjZHXx2PKTQy12cH=3c0ukgCjcRFji_3+jQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] codeparser: accept a name for better messages
X-BeenThere: bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitbake-devel.lists.openembedded.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/bitbake-devel>,
	<mailto:bitbake-devel-request@lists.openembedded.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/bitbake-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitbake-devel-request@lists.openembedded.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/bitbake-devel>,
	<mailto:bitbake-devel-request@lists.openembedded.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 07:17:10 -0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 10/29/2011 04:00 AM, Chris Larson wrote:

> 
> Note: applies on top of the previous series. Does this message wording
> seem sane to people, or would you prefer it remain more like the
> previous one? I rather like the new sentence form. Also, 'Warning'
> could unnecessarily scare users looking back at logs.

looks sane.