From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87ECD1FF183 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2025 14:41:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 494BD3827; Wed, 17 Dec 2025 14:42:15 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <460b35d5-e649-4da6-b2a0-437a8d9b9785@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2025 14:41:40 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20250916123257.107491-1-f.schauer@proxmox.com> <20250916123257.107491-5-f.schauer@proxmox.com> <9a5e31d0-fa6d-4001-b7bd-1bfdd4c322f6@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Filip Schauer In-Reply-To: <9a5e31d0-fa6d-4001-b7bd-1bfdd4c322f6@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1765978891478 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.000 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy 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: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage v8 4/9] api: content: implement copying volumes between storages X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" On 14/11/2025 00:18, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Can be fine to do due to this being marked as experimental in the description, > but would be really good to argue that in the commit message as it still is > exposed in the API since a long time. If something made this completely useless > until now it would be fine as is, otherwise it might make sense to keep the > "target" param as fallback? Sent a v9 that keeps the "target" parameter: https://lore.proxmox.com/pve-devel/20251217133655.98920-1-f.schauer@proxmox.com/T _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel