Re: [PATCH v6 14/19] fsck: Allow upgrading fsck warnings to errors

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Junio,

On 2015-06-19 22:22, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:
> 
>>  #define FSCK_FATAL -1
>> +#define FSCK_INFO -2
>>
>>  #define FOREACH_MSG_ID(FUNC) \
>>  	/* fatal errors */ \
>> @@ -50,15 +51,16 @@
>>  	FUNC(ZERO_PADDED_DATE, ERROR) \
>>  	/* warnings */ \
>>  	FUNC(BAD_FILEMODE, WARN) \
>> -	FUNC(BAD_TAG_NAME, WARN) \
>>  	FUNC(EMPTY_NAME, WARN) \
>>  	FUNC(FULL_PATHNAME, WARN) \
>>  	FUNC(HAS_DOT, WARN) \
>>  	FUNC(HAS_DOTDOT, WARN) \
>>  	FUNC(HAS_DOTGIT, WARN) \
>> -	FUNC(MISSING_TAGGER_ENTRY, WARN) \
>>  	FUNC(NULL_SHA1, WARN) \
>> -	FUNC(ZERO_PADDED_FILEMODE, WARN)
>> +	FUNC(ZERO_PADDED_FILEMODE, WARN) \
>> +	/* infos (reported as warnings, but ignored by default) */ \
>> +	FUNC(BAD_TAG_NAME, INFO) \
>> +	FUNC(MISSING_TAGGER_ENTRY, INFO)
> 
> Exactly the same comment as 12/19 applies to this change; not only
> complaints but also "result makes sense" part.

And my explanation is the same ;-) At 02/19 time, it would just puzzle me, as a reader, to see special treatment without any good reason.

Ciao,
Dscho
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]