From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A84F01FF09B for ; Mon, 31 Aug 2026 11:53:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 507ED20954; Mon, 31 Aug 2026 11:53:55 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <1998f6dd-e34c-408e-840f-96e5b2ec79d2@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2026 11:53:51 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH proxmox-backup] ui: datastore content: allow moving namespace from parent To: Dominik Csapak , pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260428111822.2471005-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <3c21a907-2d7f-4c39-87f5-4e11378afbc2@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Jonas Theisen In-Reply-To: <3c21a907-2d7f-4c39-87f5-4e11378afbc2@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1788170018363 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.813 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: 6ZL2HSYDKTICB2NZU6LPBMLSWSTN5QW4 X-Message-ID-Hash: 6ZL2HSYDKTICB2NZU6LPBMLSWSTN5QW4 X-MailFrom: j.theisen@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 8/31/26 11:25, Dominik Csapak wrote: > ping, any feedback on this? On 4/28/26 11:26 Dominik Csapak wrote: > sending as RFC because it's not urgent and IMHO it's not clear how we > should behave after moving: when inside the namespace it's clear, > we change the current view to the new place. > > But how should we handle it when we move it from the parent? > Should we navigate to the new parent? Or should we move inside the > new path (as it's currently handled) or should we stay on the same > namespace and not navigate away? To me it seems most sensible to not move away at all, since we also do not navigate to the new path for a VM move. Fyi the patch in its current version does not apply for me.