From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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 411A694E52
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2023 16:55:49 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2689D1C85
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2023 16:55:19 +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 <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2023 16:55:18 +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 3775445267
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2023 16:55:18 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <03f87272-dc10-2fe6-a176-22dfff324142@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2023 16:55:17 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/109.0
Content-Language: en-GB
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
References: <20221130140934.130359-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20221130140934.130359-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.038 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
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH docs] cluster join: mention that
 storage config from cluster is inherited
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2023 15:55:49 -0000

Am 30/11/2022 um 15:09 schrieb Fiona Ebner:
> and what to do about it. It's a rather common topic in forum threads.
> 
> Suggested in the community forum:
> https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/118492/post-513743
> 
> Signed-off-by: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
> ---
> 
> I just added it to the existing note, but maybe it's better to have
> two (one about existing guests, one about storage.cfg)? It still felt
> digestible like this and I wasn't entirely sure what to do about the
> sentence about the "configuration is overwritten"-sentence if opting
> to have two notes.
> 
>  pvecm.adoc | 13 ++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
>

applied, thanks!