Re: [PATCH 16/18] fsck: support demoting errors to warnings

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Dec 23, 2014, 20:12 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.1412232109120.21312@s15462909.onlinehome-server.info>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq4msm2o1n.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

Hi Junio,

On Tue, 23 Dec 2014, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, 23 Dec 2014, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >
> >> Having said that, I think "missingTags" etc. should not be
> >> configuration variable names (instead, they should be values).
> >> 
> >> Because of that, I do not think we need consistency between the way
> >> these "tokens that denote kinds of errors fsck denotes" are spelled
> >> and the way "configuration variable names" are spelled.
> >
> > Okay. That makes more sense.
> 
> I am sorry that I didn't step back and think about it earlier to notice
> that we shouldn't be talking about configuration variable name syntax.
> I could have saved us time going back and forth if I did so earlier.

Do not worry. You were just trying to make this software better, same as I tried.

Unfortunately, I will not be able to submit v2 of this patch series this year, but I will do so in the second week of January (including the change to the global array with the default severity levels because I do want to see this feature integrated).

Ciao, Dscho