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 24B85D68B for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2022 10:50:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 04B1727292 for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2022 10:50:19 +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 ; Thu, 1 Dec 2022 10:50:17 +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 6D3CB440A7 for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2022 10:50:17 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2022 10:50:16 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.5.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox Backup Server development discussion References: <20221130150102.242374-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> <2b9309af-052d-ee5f-a396-bfa0cff85ea3@proxmox.com> From: Stefan Hanreich In-Reply-To: <2b9309af-052d-ee5f-a396-bfa0cff85ea3@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.727 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 -0.257 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 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [prune.rs] 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: Thu, 01 Dec 2022 09:50:19 -0000 On 11/30/22 17:23, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > 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). > It's what me and Fabian came up with in response to #3701. The idea behind it was that it would be a convenience feature, so one doesn't have to additionally assemble a second prune command with the exact same options. Particularly because this prune operation would honor the group-filter option from the sync job, which is currently not possible with prune jobs alone. Maybe we could approach it from the other way and make something like group-filter possible for prune jobs? > 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. > I thought in this case it would be okay to include the filename, since I wasn't sure how to otherwise refer to the part of the code I refactored. I guess that was a lapse in judgement, would it be better to just refer to the respective functions? I also should have included the respective Bugzilla id for context. I don't know how I missed that in hindsight.