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 6E0501FF168
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Tue,  4 Feb 2025 17:22:13 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 68B621B282;
	Tue,  4 Feb 2025 17:22:11 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <9d0e70fb-3bc1-4d98-bfc3-8e9f7e42ee5a@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2025 17:21:38 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Markus Frank <m.frank@proxmox.com>
References: <20250204161340.351956-1-m.frank@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20250204161340.351956-1-m.frank@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.047 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 qemu-server v1 1/3] fix #4888: qmrestore:
 add diskformat option
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 04.02.25 um 17:13 schrieb Markus Frank:
> Add an option to choose a file format (qcow2, raw, vmdk) when restoring
> a vm backup to file based storage. This options allows all disks to be
> recreated with the specified file format if supported by the target
> storage.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Markus Frank <m.frank@proxmox.com>
> ---
> Choosing the file format and storage for each disk would require much
> more change and would be more in line with Feature Request #4275.

It's not that much more change. And if we add this now and then the
implementation for the other feature, we'll have duplicate/conflicting
options, which is also not nice. We can deprecate this option then of
course and later drop, but why not just go for the more complete
solution directly? Or at least a solution that can be built upon for
adding that feature later?


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