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 1408E1FF15C for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Wed, 5 Feb 2025 15:21:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6EF82C97C; Wed, 5 Feb 2025 15:21:16 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2025 15:20:42 +0100 Message-Id: <D7KKU5CV8411.4P53ZCPLPRZO@proxmox.com> From: "Max Carrara" <m.carrara@proxmox.com> To: "Proxmox VE development discussion" <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> X-Mailer: aerc 0.18.2-0-ge037c095a049 References: <20250205100850.3-1-a.zeidler@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20250205100850.3-1-a.zeidler@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.067 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 docs v2 1/6] ceph: add anchors for use in troubleshooting section 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 Feb 5, 2025 at 11:08 AM CET, Alexander Zeidler wrote: > Signed-off-by: Alexander Zeidler <a.zeidler@proxmox.com> > --- > v2: > * add two missing anchors to be usable via xref > To keep things short: - Docs now build again (tested with both `make update` and `make deb`). - Installed the .deb packages on my development VM in order to read the docs where they'll be "deployed" - all works fine. - Gave anchors and hrefs a smoke test by testing 'em out randomly; seems like everything's working . (tested on multi-page docs, single-page docs, PDF version) - Also checked if the `id` attribute is set for the smallest headings, and it sure is! You can't link to those sections by default (which is an AsciiDoc and/or configuration thing, I'm guessing), *but* we should still be able to refer to them throughout the docs, if necessary (untested). For example, the `id` for "Relevant Logs on Affected Node" is set correctly as intended: `chapter-pveceph.html#pve_ceph_ts_logs` - As mentioned before, I find the writing style to be quite nice; I especially like how things are broken down into smaller steps and paragraphs. No fancy idioms or figures of speech; the writing is strictly technical and instructive. - The instructions themselves also seem fine; I have used similar steps the last time I was messing around with my Ceph cluster (was a while ago though). I especially like the update on the "Destroy OSDs" section; I personally wouldn't have thought of checking that the OSDs should have their Used % below the nearfull_ratio before throwing an OSD out. Full disclosure: The only thing I haven't tried out is removing a node that is running Ceph from a cluster. *But* because I wiped a Ceph installation from a node before (before re-creating it again) I can tell that the steps there are sensible (and *much* safer than what I did back then, woops). The only thing I hadn't done was removing the node from the CRUSH hierarchy, but I guess in my case Ceph had just figured that out itself :P All in all, unless I missed something or if there are any objections, I think this can be merged. Consider: Reviewed-by: Max Carrara <m.carrara@proxmox.com> Tested-by: Max Carrara <m.carrara@proxmox.com> _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel