[Pacemaker] Resource capacity limit

[Steven Dake]

On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 14:53 +0100, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb at suse.de> wrote:
> > On 2009-11-05T14:45:36, Andrew Beekhof <andrew at beekhof.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Lastly, I would really like to defer this for 1.2
> >> I know I've bent the rules a bit for 1.0 in the past, but its really
> >> late in the game now.
> >
> > Personally, I think the Linux kernel model works really well. ie, no
> > "major releases" any more, but bugfixes and features alike get merged
> > over time and constantly.
> 
> Thats a great model if you've got hoards of developers and testers.
> Of which we have neither.
> 
> At this point in time, I can't see us going back to the way heartbeat
> releases were done.
> If there was a single thing that I'd credit Pacemaker's current
> reliability to, it would be our release strategy.

Maintaining corosync and openais, I'd surely like to only have one tree
where all work is done and never have a "stable" branch.  Andrew is
right though, this model only works if there is large downstream
adoption and support and distros take on the work of stabilizing the
efforts of the trunk development.

Talking with distros I know this is generally not the case with any
package other then kernel.org and maybe some related bits like xen/kvm
(which has forced this model upon them).

Regards
-steve