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 UTF8SMTPS id 33B037468F
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 08:59:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with UTF8SMTP id 2816A111E4
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 08:59:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [212.186.127.180])
 (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 UTF8SMTPS id B9F93111D7
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 08:59:37 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with UTF8SMTP id 8070245A90;
 Mon, 19 Apr 2021 08:59:37 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <992ab3e5-3159-d09a-a3fc-e017da96c320@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 08:59:36 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:88.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/88.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Dietmar Maurer <dietmar@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <1524469767.3672.1618755986380@webmail.proxmox.com>
From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <1524469767.3672.1618755986380@webmail.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.161 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 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)
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED        -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
 medium trust
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup v2 00/14] various clippy fixes
X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
 <pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 06:59:42 -0000

On 4/18/21 16:26, Dietmar Maurer wrote:
> Some of those changes may make sense, but it is really
> a PITA to review them. Every change can break the code an introduce new
> errors (which already happened in the past).
> 

any examples for those errors? (just for my curiosity)

can i do anything to make reviewing easier?

> On the other side, It is hard to see any advantages for
> most of those changes.
> 

IMHO, most changes do make the code better and/or more
readable (e.g. nested ifs, complex types, safety annotation,
absurd extreme comparisons), any specific ones you
dislike?

if there are some classes of warnings/errors that do not
make sense, it would probably be good if we introduce some
custom clippy configs in our repos