From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
	by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30CD01FF15C
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Wed,  7 Aug 2024 14:10:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2C87B6066;
	Wed,  7 Aug 2024 14:11:05 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2024 14:11:02 +0200
Message-Id: <D39O3PS699YC.38P5NW6BH6X0T@proxmox.com>
From: "Hannes Laimer" <h.laimer@proxmox.com>
To: "Lukas Wagner" <l.wagner@proxmox.com>, "Proxmox Backup Server
 development discussion" <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
X-Mailer: aerc 0.17.0-167-g7c5a1afbda60
References: <20240702122943.88310-1-h.laimer@proxmox.com>
 <D380B2IYC58M.15YUPPTSR270N@proxmox.com>
 <80616576-4d8b-4c8d-b5cc-fb48be9456a2@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <80616576-4d8b-4c8d-b5cc-fb48be9456a2@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.012 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
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
 Validity was blocked. See
 https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
 information.
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
 Validity was blocked. See
 https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
 information.
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
 Validity was blocked. See
 https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
 information.
 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] datastore: simplify
 update-datastore-cache socket command
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>
Reply-To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
 <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pbs-devel" <pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>

On Wed Aug 7, 2024 at 11:41 AM CEST, Lukas Wagner wrote:
> On  2024-08-05 15:19, Hannes Laimer wrote:
> > ping, still applies, and makes the logic more explicit and straight
> > forward
> > 
>
> Does not apply cleanly for me anymore :) (needs git am -3)

Is 3way merge considered less clean? I mean, in my head "applies cleanly" <=> "no
conflicts", but maybe I'm missing something. I can send it again after
applying it with 3way merge and creating a new patch file.


_______________________________________________
pbs-devel mailing list
pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel