From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FF6971A48 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 07:42:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4005023675 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 07:42:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id AF95323666 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 07:42:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7C7394561D for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 07:42:30 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <33f2b862-8cad-10ac-a882-62de69574346@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 07:41:21 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:93.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/93.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com> References: <20211004102543.676413-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20211004102543.676413-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.225 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH manager 1/2] ui: storage: change CIFS to SMB/CIFS X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2021 05:42:31 -0000 On 04.10.21 12:25, Aaron Lauterer wrote: > This will hopefully help people to find the needed storage as not > everyone will be aware of the fact that CIFS is also a name used for it > (technically it was only SMB v1). > > Signed-off-by: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com> > --- > www/manager6/Utils.js | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > applied both patches, thanks! As they do one thing, i.e., switching "CIFS" to "SMB/CIFS" in the ui it would be fine, or rather even better, in one patch. But, as people rather tend to throw everything together and squashing is easier than splitting on review take it not as direct/big complaint ;-)