Quote from: joblo on August 28, 2016, 03:57:57 AM

Quote from: JarBinks on August 28, 2016, 03:24:20 AM

Quote from: joblo on August 28, 2016, 01:45:03 AM

Proposal for change in output for share submissions.

old format:

[2016-08-27 21:09:13] accepted: 1791/1791 (100%), 11.93 MH, 461.52 kH/s yes!
[2016-08-27 21:09:13] accepted: 1791/1792 (99.9%), 11.93 MH, 461.52 kH/s nooooo

proposed new format:

[2016-08-27 21:09:13] Accepted: 11.93 MH, 461.52 kH/s, 1791/1791 (100%)
[2016-08-27 21:09:13] Rejected: 11.93 MH, 461.52 kH/s, 1791/1792 (99.9%)

Reason for change:

- shorter
- removes ambiguous "accepted" for both accepted and rejected shares
- eliminates unnecessary words "yes!" and "nooooo".

Comments?

I think the current format has become the defacto standard.
Though I am all about being different, I.E. bleeding edge, and I support any change.

My only concern would be that no changes happen with how the API is presents data, which I am pretty sure this will not.

Thanks for your comment.

I agree the API should not be different among miners as well as primary command line options. Console output is a little
less rigid.

I believe the current format, with some variations, is the convention for cpuminer and ccminer only. Those variations include
displaying hash count as well as rate, and "yes!" "noooo" instead of "yeah!!!" "boooo". AMD miners and alternative miners
have completely different output formats. I don't feel bound by the current format if it can be improved.

Any change to the output format could affect users who run filters on the output and expect a certain format. They would
have to modify their filters for the new format.

Good point about the people parsing the output!!!
Maybe make a switch to allow the new and improved vs. the legacy output just in case.