From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <d.csapak@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 D85286AA9A
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2022 08:51:01 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CEE1E2F605
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2022 08:51:01 +0100 (CET)
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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 3F3312F5FA
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2022 08:51:01 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0420541CCF;
 Thu, 17 Mar 2022 08:51:01 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <7d86b696-8152-8de5-32a2-528587cee6a3@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 08:51:00 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:99.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/99.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20211022122312.413252-1-l.stechauner@proxmox.com>
 <72eea614-c01b-5d94-b872-626dc1ca9b3f@proxmox.com>
 <7113586c-a599-126a-afce-6a71dd2aabde@proxmox.com>
From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <7113586c-a599-126a-afce-6a71dd2aabde@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.152 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
 NICE_REPLY_A           -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE    -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH-SERIES v3 storage/manager]
 factoring out RE for backup extension
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: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 07:51:01 -0000

On 3/16/22 17:16, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> On 04.11.21 15:40, Dominik Csapak wrote:
>> Series LGTM, looked closely at the regexes,
>> and they match (semantically), tested around a bit
>> and all seemed to work.
>>
>> one super small nit (not a blocker IMHO)
>>
>> the format/extension/compression handling in 2/2
>> could maybe use a comment what we do there
>> (though maybe it's just me who's confused ^^)
>>
> 
> can you send a follow up with what you have in mind?
> 

honestly i cannot totally remember what i meant, but i guess the line

(my $format = $extension) =~ s/\..*//;

confused me at first, but in now it's obvious to me that we strip the
compression from the extension...

should i send a patch to comment that ?