[Swan] warningsarefatal

[David McCullough]

Paul Wouters wrote the following:
> On Sat, 9 Nov 2013, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
> 
> >I don't see why it matters much.  Surely "fatal" would be fine and
> >safer that "warn".
> >
> >By default, they are warnings.
> >
> >They are controlled by readwriteconf's -W flag (undocumented) and
> >addconn's -W flags (documented).
> >
> >The reason I ask is that the mechanism is implemented in an awkward
> >way but before I fix that, I'm wondering if deletion is best.
> >
> >Does anyone use the -W flag?
> >
> >Does anyone care if the default switches from warning to fatal?
> 
> I'm fine with removing it and turning the "warnings" to "fatal".

Perhaps I am just not a fatalistic, but I would disagree ;-) ;-)

If we were able to treat them as warnings in the past I would just change
it to always treat them as warnings,  esp. since thats always been the
default ?

Are there cases where this can cause severe (security implications) type
problems or does it actually work around the "warning" in a sane way ?

Cheers,
Davidm

-- 
David McCullough,  davidm at spottygum.com,   Ph: 0410 560 763