From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <c.ebner@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 4DB49BA34D
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 12:51:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2CD9A1E41E
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 12:51:26 +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 <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 12:51:25 +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 D961B4687B
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 12:51:24 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <d18fbd89-b544-4e07-bdce-e918c48f559b@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 12:51:23 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US, de-DE
To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
References: <20240305092703.126906-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com>
 <20240305092703.126906-28-c.ebner@proxmox.com>
 <1710237573.g7a8c3ms4l.astroid@yuna.none>
From: Christian Ebner <c.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <1710237573.g7a8c3ms4l.astroid@yuna.none>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.037 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
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE    -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [RFC v2 proxmox-backup 27/36] client: implement
 prepare reference method
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: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 11:51:26 -0000

On 3/12/24 11:07, Fabian Grünbichler wrote:
> for these two, it might make sense to differentiate between:
> - previous manifest doesn't have that index -> no need to try download,
>    we can just skip
> - previous manifest has that index -> we try to download -> we need to
>    handle the error (and tell the user about the error message - it might
>    indicate a problem after all!)

I think opting for the fallback to regular encoding should be fine here, 
as I could not find a straight forward way to differentiate between the 
two cases. Or did I miss something?

Not sure the current backup should fail because the previous one is not 
fine.