all: overhaul log messages

all: overhaul log messages

I've gone with the convention agreed on juju-dev.

https://code.launchpad.net/~rogpeppe/juju-core/123-consistent-log-messages/+merge/129249

(do not edit description out of merge proposal)

[rog, 2012-10-11 16:52:31]

Please take a look.

[niemeyer, 2012-10-11 17:00:11]

https://codereview.appspot.com/6654044/diff/2001/cmd/jujuc/main_test.go
File cmd/jujuc/main_test.go (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/6654044/diff/2001/cmd/jujuc/main_test.go#newco...
cmd/jujuc/main_test.go:139: c.Assert(output, Equals, "remote: JUJU_CONTEXT_ID
not set\n")
"error:" seemed right for all of these.

https://codereview.appspot.com/6654044/diff/2001/cmd/jujud/bootstrap.go
File cmd/jujud/bootstrap.go (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/6654044/diff/2001/cmd/jujud/bootstrap.go#newco...
cmd/jujud/bootstrap.go:63: log.Printf("jujud: bootstrap-state initial password
%q", c.Conf.InitialPassword)
Why are we logging this?

https://codereview.appspot.com/6654044/diff/2001/cmd/jujud/machine.go
File cmd/jujud/machine.go (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/6654044/diff/2001/cmd/jujud/machine.go#newcode65
cmd/jujud/machine.go:65: log.Printf("jujud: machiner: machine is dead")
s/machiner: //

https://codereview.appspot.com/6654044/diff/2001/cmd/jujud/machine.go#newcode69
cmd/jujud/machine.go:69: log.Printf("jujud: machiner workers died with no
error")
s/machiner //

https://codereview.appspot.com/6654044/diff/2001/cmd/jujud/machine.go#newcode71
cmd/jujud/machine.go:71: log.Printf("jujud: machiner: %v", err)
s/machiner: //

https://codereview.appspot.com/6654044/diff/2001/cmd/jujud/machine.go#newcode109
cmd/jujud/machine.go:109: log.Printf("jujud: machiner ignoring unknown worker
%q", w)
s/machiner //

Machiner is a worker.

https://codereview.appspot.com/6654044/diff/2001/cmd/jujud/unit.go
File cmd/jujud/unit.go (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/6654044/diff/2001/cmd/jujud/unit.go#newcode66
cmd/jujud/unit.go:66: log.Printf("jujud: uniter workers died with no error")
s/uniter //

https://codereview.appspot.com/6654044/diff/2001/cmd/jujud/unit.go#newcode68
cmd/jujud/unit.go:68: log.Printf("jujud: uniter: %v", err)
s/uniter: //

[aram, 2012-10-11 17:12:10]

> I've also changed the error message printed to stderr by the juju commands
> to fit with these conventions

Great, I was always bothered by generic 'error: something' messages, when the
Unix convention is 'cmd: message'.

[rog, 2012-10-11 17:29:49]

On 2012/10/11 17:12:10, aram wrote:
> > I've also changed the error message printed to stderr by the juju commands
> > to fit with these conventions
> 
> Great, I was always bothered by generic 'error: something' messages, when the
> Unix convention is 'cmd: message'.

it's not happening, sorry.

[niemeyer, 2012-10-11 17:35:43]

On 2012/10/11 17:29:49, rog wrote:
> it's not happening, sorry.

To be clear, nothing was debated about it, and there's no one against the
change, so far. There's me very nervous about inserting more changes silently on
such a huge change set, and about following that line of debate while juju isn't
even ready for prime time.

[rog, 2012-10-11 17:48:31]

Please take a look.

https://codereview.appspot.com/6654044/diff/2001/cmd/jujuc/main_test.go
File cmd/jujuc/main_test.go (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/6654044/diff/2001/cmd/jujuc/main_test.go#newco...
cmd/jujuc/main_test.go:139: c.Assert(output, Equals, "remote: JUJU_CONTEXT_ID
not set\n")
On 2012/10/11 17:00:11, niemeyer wrote:
> "error:" seemed right for all of these.

reverted.

https://codereview.appspot.com/6654044/diff/2001/cmd/jujud/bootstrap.go
File cmd/jujud/bootstrap.go (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/6654044/diff/2001/cmd/jujud/bootstrap.go#newco...
cmd/jujud/bootstrap.go:63: log.Printf("jujud: bootstrap-state initial password
%q", c.Conf.InitialPassword)
On 2012/10/11 17:00:11, niemeyer wrote:
> Why are we logging this?

debugging hangover. removed.

https://codereview.appspot.com/6654044/diff/2001/cmd/jujud/machine.go
File cmd/jujud/machine.go (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/6654044/diff/2001/cmd/jujud/machine.go#newcode65
cmd/jujud/machine.go:65: log.Printf("jujud: machiner: machine is dead")
On 2012/10/11 17:00:11, niemeyer wrote:
> s/machiner: //

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/6654044/diff/2001/cmd/jujud/machine.go#newcode69
cmd/jujud/machine.go:69: log.Printf("jujud: machiner workers died with no
error")
On 2012/10/11 17:00:11, niemeyer wrote:
> s/machiner //

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/6654044/diff/2001/cmd/jujud/machine.go#newcode71
cmd/jujud/machine.go:71: log.Printf("jujud: machiner: %v", err)
On 2012/10/11 17:00:11, niemeyer wrote:
> s/machiner: //

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/6654044/diff/2001/cmd/jujud/machine.go#newcode109
cmd/jujud/machine.go:109: log.Printf("jujud: machiner ignoring unknown worker
%q", w)
On 2012/10/11 17:00:11, niemeyer wrote:
> s/machiner //
> 
> Machiner is a worker.

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/6654044/diff/2001/cmd/jujud/unit.go
File cmd/jujud/unit.go (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/6654044/diff/2001/cmd/jujud/unit.go#newcode66
cmd/jujud/unit.go:66: log.Printf("jujud: uniter workers died with no error")
On 2012/10/11 17:00:11, niemeyer wrote:
> s/uniter //

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/6654044/diff/2001/cmd/jujud/unit.go#newcode68
cmd/jujud/unit.go:68: log.Printf("jujud: uniter: %v", err)
On 2012/10/11 17:00:11, niemeyer wrote:
> s/uniter: //

Done.

[niemeyer, 2012-10-12 03:55:33]

LGTM, thanks!

[rog, 2012-10-12 07:58:30]

Please take a look.

[rog, 2012-10-31 17:10:15]

*** Submitted:

all: overhaul log messages

I've gone with the convention agreed on juju-dev.

R=niemeyer, aram
CC=
https://codereview.appspot.com/6654044