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 1153396725 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 11:03:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E5B2B16A04 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 11:03:03 +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 ; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 11:02:58 +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 5F37144DF4 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 11:02:58 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <7c911e11-d1cb-415b-9282-b40faa34dc9b@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 11:02:57 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20240411092943.57377-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <20240411092943.57377-18-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <3c34d359-27d6-42e0-b3fa-66b21fb95263@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <3c34d359-27d6-42e0-b3fa-66b21fb95263@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.071 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 09:03:04 -0000 Am 11.04.24 um 19:50 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht: > 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. Where would be a good place for this? In the appendix for the CLI in the admin guide? What exactly is the reason, just that the underscore was preferred when the project started out? Or should I re-spin naming the option "fleecing_images"?