From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <a.lauterer@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 AC8F792EA3
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 15:16:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8B9CC1E863
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 15:16:56 +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>; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 15:16:56 +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 C19524734D
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 15:16:55 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2023 15:16:55 +0100 (CET)
From: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
To: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <197995403.9367.1676470615133@webmail.proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <ed101e88-7d0a-ff15-fafb-723d07a0489c@proxmox.com>
References: <20221117092913.3711879-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
 <ed101e88-7d0a-ff15-fafb-723d07a0489c@proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.6-Rev32
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.046 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: Re: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH manager] ui: ceph: osd: set default
 icon for other crush types
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: Wed, 15 Feb 2023 14:16:56 -0000


> On 02/15/2023 3:08 PM CET Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com> wrote:
> 
>  
> applied, with a short follow up that moves the icon inside the interpolated string
> (it's shorter and still readable)
> 
> should we maybe look into adding specific icons for pre-generated types?
> or is that a niche feature for our users anyway?

I thought about it and tried it at first. But honestly, I think that a generic icon should work in most situations to guide the eye better where hierarchy levels are.

Overall, I think this is a niche use case.