From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <a.lauterer@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 2DEF371AF8 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 08:34:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 22E7023B4E for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 08:34:24 +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 AEF1423B40 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 08:34:23 +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 8004D4558B for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 08:34:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <8ce98fa4-b2ce-8015-e5b8-b4bc0469c0cd@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 08:34:22 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.1.2 Content-Language: en-US To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20211004102543.676413-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> <33f2b862-8cad-10ac-a882-62de69574346@proxmox.com> From: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <33f2b862-8cad-10ac-a882-62de69574346@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.245 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 Subject: Re: [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 06:34:24 -0000 On 10/5/21 07:41, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > 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 ;-) Hehehe, yeah, I was thinking exactly about that and then decided to err on the more verbose side ;) >