From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A5581FF161 for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Wed, 18 Dec 2024 10:42:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id EF006120B2; Wed, 18 Dec 2024 10:42:03 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4bcbf375-5fcd-47b3-90ee-95fb1555daaf@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2024 10:41:56 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Max Carrara <m.carrara@proxmox.com> References: <20241217154814.82121-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <20241217154814.82121-10-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <D6EQ3GRJNK3Q.3FN6IF1I4D5WL@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <D6EQ3GRJNK3Q.3FN6IF1I4D5WL@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.052 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. 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 09/10] common: introduce common module 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> Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> Am 18.12.24 um 10:36 schrieb Max Carrara: > On Tue Dec 17, 2024 at 4:48 PM CET, Fiona Ebner wrote: >> From: Max Carrara <m.carrara@proxmox.com> >> >> This module's purpose is to provide shared functions, constants, etc. >> for storage plugins and storage-related operations. >> >> It also contains the `get_deprecation_warning` subroutine that makes >> it easier to warn developers and/or plugin authors that a subroutine >> will be removed in the future. > > Thanks for including this patch already! Was really happy to see this :) > > Since I've never included a commit from somebody else's series / RFC in > another series, is the commit message usually left as it is? You did > mention below that you start out with a different function for your use > case, but wouldn't it make sense to adapt the commit message overall > accordingly? In this case, just the paragraph above my reply here. > Yes, the commit message should be adapted here. Thank you for pointing this out! _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel