support multiple log gatherers using the new multi-gatherer feature of foolscap #1423
Labels
No Label
0.2.0
0.3.0
0.4.0
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.7.0
0.8.0
0.9.0
1.0.0
1.1.0
1.10.0
1.10.1
1.10.2
1.10a2
1.11.0
1.12.0
1.12.1
1.13.0
1.14.0
1.15.0
1.15.1
1.2.0
1.3.0
1.4.1
1.5.0
1.6.0
1.6.1
1.7.0
1.7.1
1.7β
1.8.0
1.8.1
1.8.2
1.8.3
1.8β
1.9.0
1.9.0-s3branch
1.9.0a1
1.9.0a2
1.9.0b1
1.9.1
1.9.2
1.9.2a1
LeastAuthority.com automation
blocker
cannot reproduce
cloud-branch
code
code-dirnodes
code-encoding
code-frontend
code-frontend-cli
code-frontend-ftp-sftp
code-frontend-magic-folder
code-frontend-web
code-mutable
code-network
code-nodeadmin
code-peerselection
code-storage
contrib
critical
defect
dev-infrastructure
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
fixed
invalid
major
minor
n/a
normal
operational
packaging
somebody else's problem
supercritical
task
trivial
unknown
was already fixed
website
wontfix
worksforme
No Milestone
No Assignees
3 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Reference: tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25#1423
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Once Foolscap ticket #176 is fixed to accept multiple log gatherers, we could use that functionality to let Tahoe-LAFS users configure multiple log gatherers in their
tahoe.cfg
file.There are some questions about dependency versioning: do we wait until the new version of foolscap is widespread and then raise the version requirement that Tahoe-LAFS has on foolscap to that version? Or do we detect whether the version of foolscap is present can handle multiple log gatherers and emit an error message with instructions to upgrade if it is not new enough and the Tahoe-LAFS user has configured multiple log gatherers?
This will fix a regression in Tahoe-LAFS (#1385).
(http://foolscap.lothar.com/trac/ticket/176) was fixed in foolscap 0.6.2.
Instead, continue moving away from Foolscap to an HTTP-based protocol and find other solutions to log collection requirements.