[Pacemaker] RFC: Compacting constraints

[Lars Marowsky-Bree]

On 2009-11-12T14:41:49, Andrew Beekhof <andrew at beekhof.net> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb at suse.de> wrote:
> > On 2009-11-11T14:46:02, Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb at suse.de> wrote:
> >
> >> I went through the possible associations here, and I realize that
> >> "conjoin" is a rare word in English. In theory though, "conjoin" more
> >> readily implies an order/merge thing going on compared to "coordinate".
> >>
> >> If one wants to be more clear, "with_after", "along_with" would work
> >> too. But I thought "conjoin" was more, well, compact ;-)
> >
> > Some further thoughts on the bike shed's color - "join", "connect",
> > "link".
> 
> Did you create a bug for all this?

I've found bugzilla to be quite annoying for discussions, so I first
wanted to discuss if/what/how to go about this before filing an
enhancement bugzilla.

Since we've not yet quite agreed whether this should be a shell macro,
or a new CIB construct (despite me of course having the right answer
;-), I wasn't sure we were at the enhancement request stage yet ...

I'll go ahead and file that though.


Regards,
    Lars

-- 
Architect Storage/HA, OPS Engineering, Novell, Inc.
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde