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 9AC6993919 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 15:02:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 755793B29 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 15:02:30 +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, 5 Jan 2023 15:02:29 +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 B740A442EB for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 15:02:29 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2023 15:02:29 +0100 From: Wolfgang Bumiller To: Thomas Lamprecht Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion , Leo Nunner Message-ID: <20230105140229.wfhfyucnde4olytq@casey.proxmox.com> References: <20230102160438.180285-1-l.nunner@proxmox.com> <20230105134148.34ugmaorbb75eurj@casey.proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.213 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] [PATCH v2 storage docs] Allow overrides for default directories X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2023 14:02:30 -0000 On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 02:53:41PM +0100, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 05/01/2023 um 14:41 schrieb Wolfgang Bumiller: > > Actually, I just realized that these are actually *relative* paths > > yeah that's the idea, relative paths from the storage MP. > > > written "as absolute" paths, and if not, the error will now actually say > > that it is not an absolute path as well. > > cosmetic, but yeah. What I rather find odd is the separation format, why > don't we use the quoted string format that the maintenance stuff in PBS > added? We just had a short off-list discussion about the formatting and will also switch it to `=` instead of `:` to separate the vtype from the path so it works more like a property string (since we don't usually use `key:value` and it would also in theory allow switching to an actual object/property-string based schema later on). As for quoting, do we have this in PVE yet? But I don't very much mind not being able to use any of ';', '=' or ',' for paths for the initial implementation.