> anatoly techtonik <techtonik@gmail.com> added the comment:
> 
> I know that it is by design, but from all logging users you may be the only one 
> who keeps this behaviour in mind. The message why basicConfig() failed will be 
> more user-friendly.

You're not likely to be aware of all the feedback I get from other users of the logging package, so I'm not sure what your inference "you may be the only one" is based on. Since basicConfig() didn't "fail" (behaviour is as designed), I'm not planning any changes in this area. Also note: this issue was raised and closed in March 2005, and there have been no requests since then to change the existing behaviour (nor would it be possible to accommodate such requests without compromising backward compatibility).