From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7BF31FF179 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2025 15:45:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 41FCAE2E5; Wed, 29 Oct 2025 15:46:28 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <1b798f86-242e-4d6e-be09-cadce48b3c80@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 15:46:25 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta To: Fiona Ebner , pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20251029134638.125532-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <20251029134638.125532-2-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <176174696524.1776006.10760334798456181474.b4-ty@proxmox.com> <6ee62e07-557a-4939-bbbe-0c0a5c3748b5@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <6ee62e07-557a-4939-bbbe-0c0a5c3748b5@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1761749172707 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.025 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 Subject: Re: [pdm-devel] applied: [PATCH datacenter-manager 1/1] ui: remote wizard: validate remote ID X-BeenThere: pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pdm-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pdm-devel" Am 29.10.25 um 15:20 schrieb Fiona Ebner: > Am 29.10.25 um 3:13 PM schrieb Thomas Lamprecht: >> On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 14:46:27 +0100, Fiona Ebner wrote: >> Tiny nit, but as I noticed it more than a few times now already: >> Personally I'm not a big fan of cover-letters for simple single-patch >> submissions, just adds noise. Basically I'd prefer: >> >> - single commit -> single patch and no cover letter, it's basically just a >> `git send-email -1` call anyway. >> - multiple commits -> always a cover letter. >> >> But if I'd have to chose between either always cover-letter or never I'd go for >> always, so it's fine for me, just find it unnecessary and cost my slightly more >> time to read a extra post to see if there is anything that special that >> warrants a cover-letter for "just" a single patch. > > Okay, sorry. I recently switched to always using cover letters as part > of my workflow (since I often don't know if something will stay a single > patch or a single repo for that matter). But I'll switch back to sending > only a stand-alone patch if it turned out to be that. Nothing big, so definitively no worries, and if it helps you it has at least a benefit for somebody, and with that it's fine for me. I mostly want to avoid that others always send cover letters for single patches just because they think it's required. _______________________________________________ pdm-devel mailing list pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdm-devel