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 635EE6A722
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 16:19:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5A76E29698
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 16:19:40 +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 id C52282968A
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 16:19:38 +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 96B3C463EE
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 16:19:38 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <85f6bc2e-c10a-670d-8a42-90ab3e0b6df7@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 16:19:37 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:99.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/99.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Oguz Bektas <o.bektas@proxmox.com>
References: <20210705101544.590258-1-o.bektas@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210705101544.590258-1-o.bektas@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%
 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
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE    -0.01 -
Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH docs] pvecm: add small note for
 'updatecerts' workaround in qdevice setup
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, 16 Mar 2022 15:19:40 -0000

On 05.07.21 12:15, Oguz Bektas wrote:
> sometimes the qdevice setup can fail when copying CA certificates if the
> node SSH keys are not matching for some reason.
> 
> reported here:
> https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/pvecm-qdevice-setup-fails.88681
> 
> Signed-off-by: Oguz Bektas <o.bektas@proxmox.com>
> ---
>  pvecm.adoc | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
>

applied, but as there was a (context change) merge conflict anyway I merged it into the
existing, semi-related, note above. thanks!