[pve-devel] Upstream contribution to ZFSPoolPlugin.pm possible?

[Max R. Carrara]

On Tue Aug 5, 2025 at 3:49 PM CEST, Max R. Carrara wrote:
> On Tue Aug 5, 2025 at 2:39 PM CEST, =?utf-8?B?Q2hyaXN0aWFuIFPDvMOfZW5ndXRo?= wrote:
> > Hi Max,
> >
> > sure thing, here's my request without any signature:
> >
> > Dear PROXMOX devs,
> >
> > I have a quick question regarding an upstream contribution to ZFSPoolPlugin.pm.
> >
> > Currently I'm "maintaining" the following patch which allows migration of encrypted ZFS datasets: https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/allow-migration-and-replication-of-disks-on-zfs-encrypted-storage.117227/
>
> Ah, interesting! Thanks for sharing. Let me answer your questions first:
>
> >
> > What steps would I have to take to have this implemented upstream?
>
> In short:
>
>  1. Check out the general developer documentation if you haven't
>     already: https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/Developer_Documentation
>  2. You will need to sign a CLA if you haven't yet. For more
>     information, see: https://proxmox.com/en/about/open-source/developers
>  3. Work on your patch series
>  4. Send the series to this mailing list once you're satisfied
>  5. Wait for feedback / review
>  6. Eventually have your patch series applied once it passes review
>     and testing; otherwise goto 3. if changes are requested
>
> Of course, depending on the scope and size of the patch series, this can
> take a little while, but don't let this discourage you. We always
> welcome contributions and are happy to review and test them! :)
>
> > Or is there something from dev side which speaks against implementing this at all?
>
> In general, there's nothing that speaks against implementing this;
> it's rather that it would require some more thorough testing and
> careful planning on how the feature should be integrated overall, as
> storage is something very fundamental in PVE.

There's another thing I wanted to mention that one of my coworkers
(thanks Aaron!) just pointed out to me: This bug here has been open
since quite a while:
https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2350

Since it has also been referenced in the forum thread you linked above,
I assume you're already aware of it; but anyhow, this issue might be a
blocker in general, unfortunately. I'm not sure if there have been any
recent improvements upstream in that regard.