[Pacemaker] Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [Cluster-devel] [RFC] Splitting cluster.git into separate projects/trees

[Andrew Beekhof]

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:37, Fabio M. Di Nitto <fdinitto at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 11:25 +0100, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:02, Fabio M. Di Nitto <fdinitto at redhat.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 09:52 +0100, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 06:52, Fabio M. Di Nitto <fdinitto at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > There is actually an important difference for me to keep them separated.
>> >> >
>> >> > Each time we do a package update, the whole set of daemons will need to
>> >> > go through testing again, even if they didn't change a bit.
>> >>
>> >> True.
>> >>
>> >> Random thought - how about having the resource and fence agents together?
>> >> Similar things with similar update frequencies...
>> >
>> > hmmm no.. same reason. they have different tasks.. different subsystems
>> > etc.
>>
>> They're still scripts though (and there's not much more difference
>> between an IP and IPMI script than there is between an IP and Apache
>> script).
>> And I'd guess that the chances of each set needing a refresh is about
>> the same at any given point in time...
>
> You would still end up with the testing issue we try to avoid by keeping
> daemons and agents separated.

I don't believe so

>> And I'd guess that the chances of each set needing a refresh is about
>> the same at any given point in time...

Which is to say that you're probably going to be testing and releasing
both at similar intervals anyway.
And since they're functionally orthogonal (just as the IP and Apache
scripts are functionally orthogonal) your testing of one is unaffected
by changes in the other.