From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72F981FF0B2 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2026 15:23:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 30134215CB; Mon, 24 Aug 2026 15:23:58 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2026 15:23:54 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH datacenter-manager v2 09/20] context: establish PdmApplication object From: "Lukas Wagner" To: "Dominik Csapak" , "Lukas Wagner" , X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0-0-g5549850facc2-dirty References: <20260820145220.418032-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> <20260820145220.418032-10-l.wagner@proxmox.com> <5b3c6623-0e83-4978-9c52-3c799df8d303@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <5b3c6623-0e83-4978-9c52-3c799df8d303@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1787577804961 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.644 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: JLCG7IDARXQ7FBMSKQ2OWARUIAHUBWTP X-Message-ID-Hash: JLCG7IDARXQ7FBMSKQ2OWARUIAHUBWTP X-MailFrom: l.wagner@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Mon Aug 24, 2026 at 2:33 PM CEST, Dominik Csapak wrote: > high level comment: > > as you rightfully note in the code, the custom ProductConfig here > could (and IMO) should live in proxmox-product-config, it's > generic enough, and there is no reason to duplicate anything here... absolutely, I should have gone into more detail in the comment or commit message. The main reason why I kept it here for now was to reduce effort for this series for *now*, since I wasn't really sure whether we wanted to move into this direction at all. Since I got now quite positive feedback from a bunch of people, both off-list and on-list, I'd move ProductConfig to proxmox-product-config in the next revision, and adjust the already existing functions in that crate to use the new type internally.