Carlo Arenas <carenas@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > PS. should we really do the warn even in store/erase operations as a > followup or is the warning not useful as is, and probably then all > operations should be quiet (as Jonathan suggested originally?) and we > could do warn (and maybe fix) in a different change (maybe adding a > fsck command of sorts)? Yeah, I think I like the "no warning, just ignore" much better. The implementation I suspect would become a lot simpler, right? Thanks for thinking one extra step.
