[Pacemaker] Resource capacity limit

[Andrew Beekhof]

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Dejan Muhamedagic <dejanmm at fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 07:28:16PM +0100, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> But I'm thinking of moving to a bi-monthly cycle.  Thoughts?
>
> Agreed. In principle, somewhat slower release process should
> result in better releases.

Actually thats not the rationale behind it at all.
I don't believe additional time would have improved the quality.
CTS passed, regression tests passed and no-one tests until its released...
At least releasing often means that we see the next set of bugs sooner.

The main reason is that if one week out of every 4 is consumed by
testing, and another one for waiting for the build service, then thats
not much time to actually get any work done in between.

Thankfully the build service is out of the equation now so it takes at
most a day to rebuild.
But still, I think we're at the point where Pacemaker is stable enough
that we don't need releases so often.

>> Well in theory that point is x.y.0
>> I've been turning a blind eye to your changes in the shell because its
>> still very immature (I don't mean that negatively, its just new code).
>
> That should of course change as soon as the shell supports all
> CIB constructs (which is not far away). But we all understood
> that it made no sense to keep those changes out :)

Exactly.  And we've basically been learning about what works and what
doesn't as feedback comes in.
I think, when I write this up, that we should retain the ability to
designate some pieces as "experimental" and that those can continue to
be updated.