inheritance of implied trace levels is incorrect

[rhl@…]

This one's a little hard to demonstrate with the previous bugs unfixed, but it illustrates that
the inheritance scheme adopted won't work.

psTraceSetLevel("A.B", 2)
psTraceSetLevel("A.B.C.D.E", 5)
psTracePrintLevels()
. 0

A 2

B 5
C 5
D 5
E 5

B 2

psTraceSetLevel("A.B", 10)
. 0

A 2

B 10
C 5
D 5
E 5

B 2

Note that A.B.C were never set to 5, they merely inherited it from A.B. In this case, resetting A.B
should have changed them to 10.

rel2_2

[gusciora@…]

Here is what I think the correct behavior of the following code fragment should be:

psTraceReset();
psTraceSetLevel(".A.B", 2);
psTraceSetLevel(".A.B.C.D.E", 5);
psTracePrintLevels();

. 0

A 0

B 2

C 2

D 2

E 5

psTraceSetLevel(".A.B", 10);
psTracePrintLevels();

. 0

A 0

B 10

C 2

D 2

E 5

Let me know if you disagree. The issue is whether or not C and D should inherit
the new trace level of B when B's level is change dynamically. Or, does it
inherit B's level when C and D are created only.

[gusciora@…]

This has been changed in the current CVS version. The current behavior conforms
to the SDRS, but the SDRS is somewhat vague on this.