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