>> fsck's raison d'etre [...] is impossible to do this in the
>> circumstances described without either losing or recovering the data
>> in question.
> The data was lost when the application unlinked it.

...??  Then how can the application continue working with it?  This is
clearly some strange new meaning of "lost".

>> and the price is so low that I don't consider it bloat even though I
>> will probably never use the option
> Options that aren't used are bloat - no matter how little the code
> changes are.

I will probably never use mount_filecore, either; does that make it
bloat?  I said "I will probably never use", not "it will probably never
be used".  I have other tools I'd use in this circumstance.

>> You really think this sort of lossage will happen only once in my
>> (or greywolf's) career?
> No, but I suspect that you'd be so sick of the option re-attaching
> files that weren't supposed to be, that you would not have it
> enabled, then [the problem strikes]

Maybe.  I very rarely see fsck clearing files on reboot at all.

> In any case, my rough judgment of what has happened here is that the
> option isn't going to get added anyway

Perhaps not.  The patch exists for people who want it; I'm not going to
lose any sleep over whether you manage to keep it out of NetBSD proper.

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B