From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <l.wagner@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 1463293C91
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue,  9 Apr 2024 15:44:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E35621FC8C
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue,  9 Apr 2024 15:44:12 +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
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue,  9 Apr 2024 15:44:12 +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 150634092A
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue,  9 Apr 2024 15:44:12 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <9327cc60-40fb-4bfc-a9cf-bd1715b9e17d@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 15:44:11 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20240209101628.76377-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com>
 <fc9cab02-e312-4805-a96b-d80234ef0439@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: de-AT, en-US
From: Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <fc9cab02-e312-4805-a96b-d80234ef0439@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.006 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 manager] Revert "ui: dc: remove notify key
 from datacenter option view"
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, 09 Apr 2024 13:44:43 -0000

On  2024-04-09 15:07, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> I'd propose two changes:
> 
> - add a hint to redirect users to the new mechanisms so that a future
>   deprecation would be more expected (if we already plan that now)
> 
> - only show it if defined? While that's a bit magic, it'd avoid that
>   users set it, but rather use the new mechanism.
>   If, I'd never delete the setting via the UI, so that it doesn't
>   suddenly disappears if one switches it from some value to default.
> 
> What do you think?

I think that would make a lot of sense. I'll send a v2 with the suggested
changes.

Thanks a lot for the feedback!

-- 
- Lukas