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 [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68B5E1FF29F for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2024 09:43:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1E9C56A4B; Thu, 18 Jul 2024 09:43:42 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 09:43:38 +0200 Message-Id: <D2SHW2U0S5Z5.23LWQPGDWLH8A@proxmox.com> From: "Max Carrara" <m.carrara@proxmox.com> To: "Thomas Lamprecht" <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>, "Proxmox VE development discussion" <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> X-Mailer: aerc 0.17.0-72-g6a84f1331f1c References: <20240717094034.124857-1-m.carrara@proxmox.com> <20240717094034.124857-2-m.carrara@proxmox.com> <d5bb00b0-c85d-4415-a8d8-8606670f296b@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <d5bb00b0-c85d-4415-a8d8-8606670f296b@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.029 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 pve-storage 01/36] plugin: base: remove old fixme comments 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 Wed Jul 17, 2024 at 6:02 PM CEST, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 17/07/2024 um 11:39 schrieb Max Carrara: > > These have been around since 2012 - suffice to say they're not needed > > anymore. > > That's really not a good argument though? Just because nobody checked > those closely for a long time it does not mean that they became > magically irrelevant. > > Look, it can be (and probably _is_) fine to remove them, but stating > that this is fine just because they were not touched since a while is a > rather dangerous tactic. Someone had some thoughts when adding this, > they might be still relevant or not, but it's definitively *not* > "suffice to say" that they aren't just because they have been around > since 2012, (iSCSI) portals and local storage still exist and are not > working really different compared to 12 years ago. > > The node restriction FIXME comment can e.g. be removed as we delete any > such restriction in "parse_config", mentioning that as a reason would > make doing so fine, saying "it's old and unchanged" doesn't. > > The storage portal one could be argued with not being defined elsewhere > and all use cases being covered by pve-storage-portal-dns, so removing > it won't hurt, especially as we can always recover it from history. > > I think your intention quite surely matched those and meant well, but > removing something just because it's old is on its own IMO a bit of a > red flag, so one should get too used to that argumentation style even > if it's for removing comments, or other stuff that won't change semantics. I completely agree with you, I probably should've stated a better reason there. IIRC I removed those two things for a valid reason, but because the commit was made a while ago, I'm not actually sure anymore what they were exactly. I guess this proves your point. ;) In a future RFC / Series, this will definitely be updated. Thanks for pointing that out. > > Anyhow, do not let this demotivate you from your clean-up efforts, they > are still quite appreciated. > While removing dead code is good, the argumentation behind should be > sound, and I only write this long tirade (sorry) as we got bitten by > some innocent looking changes stemming from a similar argumentation in > the past. No worries, no offense taken here - I really appreciate comment. Sometimes these things do need to be pointed out, because e.g. for me personally it just wasn't on my radar that a commit like this could become a tough to debug issue in case things go south. That's probably because I've never had to deal with debugging such a thing myself. So again, no worries, I appreciate it! _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel