From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <c.ebner@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 3654593857
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue,  6 Feb 2024 09:49:01 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0099E30CBB
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue,  6 Feb 2024 09:48:30 +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
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue,  6 Feb 2024 09:48:29 +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 AFFD444543
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue,  6 Feb 2024 09:48:29 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 09:48:29 +0100 (CET)
From: Christian Ebner <c.ebner@proxmox.com>
To: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <990490647.2281.1707209309110@webmail.proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <362b0156-16d4-40d6-9eb0-6bea947e7092@proxmox.com>
References: <20240205170827.340962-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com>
 <362b0156-16d4-40d6-9eb0-6bea947e7092@proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.6-Rev58
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.050 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
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE    -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH proxmox master stable-2 1/2] apt: repos:
 extend `Codename` by `Unknown` variant
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: Tue, 06 Feb 2024 08:49:01 -0000


> >  
> > -                if Some(codename) == current_codename.next() {
> > -                    add_info("ignore-pre-upgrade-warning", message_new(base_suite));
> > -                } else if codename > current_codename {
> > -                    add_info("warning", message_new(base_suite));
> > +                match current_codename.next() {
> > +                    name if name == codename => {
> > +                        add_info("ignore-pre-upgrade-warning", message_new(base_suite));
> > +                    }
> > +                    DebianCodename::Unknown(_, _) if codename > current_codename => {
> > +                        add_info("warning", message_new(base_suite));
> > +                    }
> > +                    _ => {}
> 
> Like this, the warning is lost when we match a known codename that is
> newer than the current one. What is the issue with the current code you
> are trying to address?

There is no issue with the current code, I just refactored it to use the newly introduced variant instead of the Option.
Am I missing something? This should behave just like the code before.

> 
> As for the match, you could pull in the case where the suite is older
> (the if block just above this code) and rather do an exhaustive match.