For the lvm script, I see that the third patch hunk (snapshot) allows the optional WARNING. For the first two patch hunks (thin pool / thin metadata), the WARNING is always expected. Should they be coded as (?:WARNING: )? in those first two hunks to preserve backwards compatibility?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
For the lvm script, I see that the third patch hunk (snapshot) allows the optional
WARNING. For the first two patch hunks (thin pool / thin metadata), theWARNINGis always expected. Should they be coded as(?:WARNING: )?in those first two hunks to preserve backwards compatibility?Yes, you are correct. Good catch.
I'll update it.