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 B6FE781AFF
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 25 Nov 2021 15:14:28 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B480EE763
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 25 Nov 2021 15:14:28 +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 0D951E6DE
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 25 Nov 2021 15:14:28 +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 DBD6846A7E
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 25 Nov 2021 15:14:27 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <d128ce9b-1c98-d41c-0461-cf26bc0e7e5b@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 15:14:27 +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: Oguz Bektas <o.bektas@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20211125134803.2320788-1-o.bektas@proxmox.com>
 <82e0c5e9-d31d-1366-8dc1-6502e8ec6c67@proxmox.com> <YZ+ZpRhLPguofnEt@gaia>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <YZ+ZpRhLPguofnEt@gaia>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 2.145 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             -4.1 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 v2 manager] set https_proxy to http_proxy
 for querying url metadata
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, 25 Nov 2021 14:14:28 -0000

On 25.11.21 15:11, Oguz Bektas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 03:08:24PM +0100, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
>> On 25.11.21 14:48, Oguz Bektas wrote:
>>> Reviewed-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
>>
>> where is this tag coming from? Did not see it on the list, only the comment
>> that it wasn't working?
> 
> yes its fixed now... he did review it, and its only a single line, so i
> thought i'll add it before it gets forgotten along the way ;)
> 

yeah no, that's not how it works.

first, one line or hundreds, that does not matter, especially one-liners can be
pretty bad. Secondly, the patch was completely broken, which got mentioned, that's
not akin to a R-b tag at all.. Nothing was there to get forgotten along the way.