On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 05:01:34PM +0200, Xavier Morel wrote: > > Note that these are treated with a severity of "warning", so fsck won't > > give a non-zero exit. > > Yeah from what I understand it is classified as a warning already > (just not emitted), like the zero padded filemodes. And that can be > upgraded to error using fsck.msgid=error so shouldn't be an issue. Right. > > I think it still enough for transfer.fsckObjects > > to mark them. I kind of wonder if fixing this at this point might create > > more problems than it solves though (e.g., if people have broken modes > > in historical objects that servers may now reject). > > Maybe downgrade to info or ignore by default then? It might still be > an issue for people who wilfully upgraded the diagnostic to error > hoping to catch the, but hopefully if they did that they'd rather get > the notice later than never? Yeah, that may be a sensible resolution. All things being equal I think "warning" is the right level, but out of caution and the historical precedent, maybe downgrading it to "info" is justified. It should be easy to work that into the patch I showed earlier. -Peff
