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 [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9])
	by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF3471FF15C
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 11:20:33 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E3DBD33B82;
	Wed, 26 Mar 2025 11:20:28 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <88db9d7d-843e-47dc-8f62-44054a3a0824@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 11:20:26 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
References: <20250321095700.106077-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com>
 <804e5e3e-5cf0-4d50-8a5d-750342867527@proxmox.com>
 <74467ca7-5467-4f0f-879a-182bdb667a16@proxmox.com>
 <3230a5ae-a5e7-42c7-9cc4-587fe194e29f@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: de-AT, en-US
From: Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <3230a5ae-a5e7-42c7-9cc4-587fe194e29f@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.011 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] applied: [PATCH proxmox 1/2] notify: webhook:
 gotify: set Content-Length header
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>



On  2025-03-26 11:11, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> Am 26.03.25 um 10:54 schrieb Lukas Wagner:
>> On  2025-03-25 19:41, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
>>> FWIW, as it was already encoded in the commit message for posterity I'd
>>> have been fine with the comment being a bit shorter, e.g., the link to
>>> the RFC and the last line, but it did not bother me to care amending the
>>> patch and it's not a clear-cut, or at least subjective, so just a nit.
>>
>> The brief quote from the RFC gives good context on *why* the change should be done
>> in a self-contained way without having to go to the RFC text and search for the correct
>> paragraph. IMO it definitely makes sense to have it in the commit message.
> 
> Yes, that's why I explicitly state that it makes sense in the *commit*
> message, but that doing that is enough compared to also having the full
> thing permanently as *comment* in the code like you did...
> Because if we would do that for all implementation details the code
> will get unreadable quickly.
> 

Apparently my brain failed to parse and distinguish "commit" and "comment" successfully.

Sorry for the confusion.

-- 
- Lukas



_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel