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 8DE547E676
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 18:18:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7F402208BA
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 18:18:02 +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))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 65FBF208AA
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 18:18:01 +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 34D5244B71
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 18:18:01 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <8d4c64d8-8e22-e1fb-e84e-7bd6321c9c41@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 18:18:00 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:95.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/95.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
References: <20211110140256.1863209-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20211110140256.1863209-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.725 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
 KAM_NUMSUBJECT 0.5 Subject ends in numbers excluding current years
 NICE_REPLY_A           -1.678 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] [PATCH manager 0/4] followups for vzdump scheduling2
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: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 17:18:02 -0000

On 10.11.21 15:02, Dominik Csapak wrote:
> * fixes the saving/loading of the 'prune-backups' field (oops)
> * adds correct validation for id
> * adds a comment field for jobs

still missing any documentation update ;)

I'd move out the schedule format section from the replication chapter to an appendix
(or some other, more central place), extend backups about the new scheduling stuff.

also the ID is now some in-between stuff, one needs to enter it but it won't be
shown in the grid anyway, so either:

1 go the full way like PBS sync/verify/... jobs and just auto-generate, less inputs
  or the user is normally better UX and they can express comments already in the,
  well new comment field.
2 hide it only for the old ones, rather too confusing
3 allow to edit it for existing jobs, would be a bit weird for the API but as we have
  the digest mechanism and can  do (pseudo call) `PUT /.../backup/<oldid>?id=<newid>`
  it could work without to much confusion..

1 would be the least commitment now, 2 is meh and 3 is more commitment now and may
open a precedent for users to nag about allowing this in more places (where it may
be way harder, a nuisance or plain impossible)

What do you think?