Code review comment for lp:~jameinel/bzr/2.4-fdatasync-ENOTSUP-1075108

> Sure, if you can come up with an fdatasync() error code that is
> clearly a data loss

Better safe than sorry. Neither of us want to inspect fdatasync() implementation nor guess what could come out from it. What I'm saying is that your patch removes a safe guard around a mechanism added to *add* reliability. If you don't care about it, you may as well remove fdatasync() altogether rather than ignoring what it may report.

fdatasync() has been added in 2.4 and we got a single report that it failed and that's with an ssh mounted fs (a rather edge case since having ssh access our users are better served by bzr+ssh...).

It's a bit thin to suddenly switch to a mode where we ignore *all* errors instead of catching the unusual one.