From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 5A17ED4A3 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2022 17:23:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 432E8210B3 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2022 17:23:25 +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 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2022 17:23:24 +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 D4D7F44B43 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2022 17:23:23 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <2b9309af-052d-ee5f-a396-bfa0cff85ea3@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 17:23:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:108.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/108.0 Content-Language: en-GB To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion , Stefan Hanreich References: <20221130150102.242374-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20221130150102.242374-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.100 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 -0.258 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: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup v2 0/7] Add Prune Options to Sync Jobs X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 16:23:25 -0000 Am 30/11/2022 um 16:00 schrieb Stefan Hanreich: > This patch adds the possibility of configuring prune options for sync jobs. This > runs a prune job after a successful sync job that prunes the backup groups that > got synced by the respective sync job (meaning this respects group-filter, > max-depth, target namespace and so on). Why? Ain't the existing prune job and their flexible schedules enough? Why should one conflate syncing with pruning? Isn't that just complicating things (many interfaces that can do everything of other interfaces). Am 30/11/2022 um 16:00 schrieb Stefan Hanreich: > Add KeepOptions parameters to pull & sync-job > refactor prune.rs - add PruneJob struct for handling prune jobs > Add pruning parameters to the pull command > use new PruneJob in prune command > use new PruneJob struct in Prune Jobs implementation > add KeepOptions to Web UI of Sync Jobs > Add documentation for prune options in Sync Jobs having a lot of changelogs written, especially recently the lacks of human readable tags (e.g., "docs:", "ui:" "sync job:", ...) and mixed casing stuck quite out, even much more so the use of filenames in commit subjects which I already pointed out quite directly and visible as being useless and annoying. Structs are not always as worse, but not very often _that_ useful either for skimming a bigger git log or assembling change somewhat meaningful logs.