From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 091901FF142 for ; Tue, 05 May 2026 09:34:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D6678184DB; Tue, 5 May 2026 09:34:16 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Tue, 05 May 2026 09:34:12 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: applied: [PATCH docs 0/2] add requirements for HA-managed resources From: "Daniel Kral" To: "Thomas Lamprecht" , X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0-136-gdb9fe9896a79-dirty References: <20260504111159.183163-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> <177792004458.3134498.13990197696435312088.b4-ty@b4> In-Reply-To: <177792004458.3134498.13990197696435312088.b4-ty@b4> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1777966346748 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.077 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 Message-ID-Hash: POAXH4AQISZWXF3D4MDMA5JCLNJWES6U X-Message-ID-Hash: POAXH4AQISZWXF3D4MDMA5JCLNJWES6U X-MailFrom: d.kral@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Mon May 4, 2026 at 8:40 PM CEST, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > On Mon, 04 May 2026 13:11:53 +0200, Daniel Kral wrote: >> The first patch cleans up the previous introduction for HA resources a >> bit and removes some outdated comparison to rgmanager, while the second >> patch adds a list of requirements with some accompanying text what to do >> if these requirements are not met. >>=20 >>=20 >> Daniel Kral (2): >> ha-manager: reword ha resources section >> ha-manager: add requirements for ha-managed vms and containers >>=20 >> [...] > > Applied, with some wording improvement squashed in, thanks! > > Also adapted this slightly to avoid conveying that always all nodes need = to > support all HA resources, as with node affinity that's not a requirement.= I > initially thought about doing that adaption as follow-up, but it was not = that > much change while touching basically quite a few lines due to diff churn,= so I > figured it's better squashed in to keep the commit whole, hope that's OK = (I > did add a notice to the commit message to describe my changes though for > transparency). That looks good, the reframing helps in conveying the message that it's not that these HA resources cannot be added at all, but that admins need to encode the proper dependencies if they are different from the usual assumptions. Thanks! > > [1/2] ha-manager: reword ha resources section > commit: 6e40229424611ea216733259489d605556bb4a32 > [2/2] ha-manager: add requirements for ha-managed vms and containers > commit: 8fbf4ab3b38790f6b7219a5e709803ec152055df