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

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

Exactly the same comment as 12/19 applies to this change; not only
complaints but also "result makes sense" part.

Hi Junio,

On 2015-06-19 22:22, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

 #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