[PATCH] lshal - The next generation

[Richard Hughes]

On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 08:43 -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 13:38 +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > > No, it needs to be stderr because we print normal information using
> > > stdout and programs launching lshal might grep for this. Now, if things
> > > fail we don't want to confuse the program launching lshal in case it
> > > doesn't check if the return code is non-zero. Printing errors to stderr,
> > > not stdout, is pretty standard practice I think :-)
> > 
> > But we print lots stuff to stderr, like the usage text, and all the
> > monitor output text -- shouldn't this be stdout?
> 
> Only usage text and text from errors should go to stderr - the rest
> (e.g. the actual program output from a successful run) should go to
> stdout.

Cool. You want this is CVS now?

Richard.