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 7AC8F95129 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 19:51:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5030F35DAE for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 19:51:02 +0200 (CEST) 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>; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 19:51:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 09C5544B48 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 19:51:01 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3c34d359-27d6-42e0-b3fa-66b21fb95263@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 19:50:57 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> References: <20240411092943.57377-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <20240411092943.57377-18-f.ebner@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-GB From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20240411092943.57377-18-f.ebner@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.057 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: [pve-devel] [RFC qemu-server v3 17/22] parse config: allow config keys with minus sign 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: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 17:51:02 -0000 On 11/04/2024 11:29, Fiona Ebner wrote: > In preparation for the upcoming 'fleecing-images' key. To avoid mixing > of options with - and options with _, which is not very user-friendly, > it would be nice to add aliases for existing options with _. And > long-term, backup restore handlers could switch to the modern keys > with -. a long-term way out could be to switch all formats over to using kebab-case and normalize through s/_/- here. Writing that out again naturally need either checking if all nodes support the new format already actively, or adding support to it in a minor release now and then enable it on a major release. All churn, but so is having an format mess. I ponder about doing something like this for the API, but for endpoints not being backed by a config (schema) it would be less problematic w.r.t. accepting both variants for a while, but API docs showing only the new one and then making warnings noisier over the time of a full major release.. Anyhow, this on it's own would be fine by me, but in any case we should at least document why the formats are mixed would be good, users can be confused by it, and cannot know that most of the "bad" options isn't the fault from the devs currently mainly working on PVE.