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 760D11FF2C8 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2024 09:25:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9808F360C2; Wed, 17 Jul 2024 09:25:54 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 09:25:20 +0200 From: Christoph Heiss To: Thomas Lamprecht Message-ID: References: <20240710132756.1149508-1-c.heiss@proxmox.com> <58501401-6e7e-4304-bede-4fe5cee03fb1@proxmox.com> <7inqakvnzxyqmlrcgodrm6rvh2slger2dftnd3zdije2pizp3p@ehg3p6slrvxt> <8fd85144-2c0f-42af-aa36-83124b2c96c5@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8fd85144-2c0f-42af-aa36-83124b2c96c5@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.020 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] [PATCH installer 00/14] fix #5536: implement post-(auto-)installation notification mechanism X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 06:09:17PM GMT, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 15/07/2024 um 16:31 schrieb Christoph Heiss: > > With that in mind it definitely could come in handy. Or maybe a separate > > object "disks"/"other-disks"/etc. entirely? So as not have to filter out > > the (non-)bootdisks again on the receiving end. > > Could be fine too, albeit I'd slightly prefer a single disk property, as it > feels more naturally to me to filter on properties compared to checking, or > having to combine, different array sets. But not too hard feelings here, > maybe someone else got some (stronger) opinion. If nobody else voices their opinion over that I'll go ahead with your idea, a single property. Both have merits, but having them a single property is more universal I guess. > > > While at it, the same would IMO make sense for NICs too, since one might > > want to set up additional network devices too. > > good point. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel