Re: audit message types
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 08:47, Steve Grubb wrote:
On Tuesday 19 April 2005 11:23, Steve Grubb wrote:
> I wanted to start a discussion about an old topic that we last discussed
> back in December. The problem basically centers around the audit message
> type being too coarse to be of any real use.
Attached is my current working patch for people to review and comment on.
It'd be helpful if you include the "p" flag ("Show which C function
each
change is in") when you RFC a patch.
-tim