From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dietmar@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 529B870005
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu,  2 Sep 2021 09:06:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 411D1F151
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu,  2 Sep 2021 09:06:04 +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 C1BDEF142
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu,  2 Sep 2021 09:06:03 +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 8A151444CC
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu,  2 Sep 2021 09:06:03 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2021 09:05:25 +0200 (CEST)
From: Dietmar Maurer <dietmar@proxmox.com>
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <1756820355.1970.1630566325116@webmail.proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.5-Rev21
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.689 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
 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] [RFC PATCH proxmox-backup 0/5] add 'protected'
 setting for snapshots
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: Thu, 02 Sep 2021 07:06:34 -0000


> On 09/02/2021 8:48 AM Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> wrote:
> 
>  
> On 02.09.21 08:45, Dietmar Maurer wrote:
> >>> * would we want to protect also against manual removal ? or
> >>>  'remove-vanished' on sync?
> >>
> >> Would make sense as long as we allow to "unprotect" it, that's how we do it for guests
> >> in PVE too. IMO it's weird/unexpected to mark it protected and allow some API mechanisms
> >> to still remove it.
> > 
> > I would not consider the protected flag for syncs, i.e:
> > - do not sync the protected flag itself
> 
> That I agree (and I did not meant to suggest otherwise).
> 
> > - remove vanished backups even with protected flag set (to be in sync with source)
> 
> That I do not agree, if I marked a snapshot explicitly protected, which
> is a must for the situation to happen with the first point above in mind
> (no syncing of the protection flag itself) then I'm pretty sure that I want
> to keep that snapshot no matter what.

Also OK for me.