[Pacemaker] Resource capacity limit

[Andrew Beekhof]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb at suse.de> wrote:
> On 2009-11-12T14:53:24, Andrew Beekhof <andrew at beekhof.net> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Well, exactly, and that's what pacemaker has been doing, right? Phasing
> in features over time? Successfully? ;-)
>
>> > With increasing coverage of the regression tests, the existing
>> > functionality is protected; which is really the important bit. This
>> > encourages a smooth forward transition.
>> One simply can't test everything.
>
> True, but we do a pretty good job of it.
>
> Or are there any fundamental changes you've queued up?

Yes, stonith and possibly the lrmd will be seeing some changes in the
near future.
There are also a number of configuration changes I want to make.

>
>> > There's a point in having a devel tree (similar to linux-next) before
>> > merging back major features into the trunk, but I don't really subscribe
>> > to the major version flow. That just means that there's a lot of testing
>> > that needs to happen at once, which means more things slip through than
>> > with incremental testing. In my experience, major updates make them a
>> > royal PITA for users.
>> Noted. But for now, I don't think we'll go in that direction.
>
> So you want to change away from a successful model (as in the 1.0.x
> series so far) to a more disruptive one? ;-)

No, I'm suggesting that we won't be changing from what we do now.
I'd just document it.


> If you're saying we don't have resources for people to test a
> development tree, that's true either for one that periodically gets
> merged back into "mainline", as well as for one that gets merged back in
> much larger intervals. In fact, I'd predict it'll be worse for the
> latter model.

Except that no-ones putting a gun to people's head making them use the
new stuff.
Thats the point of cutting off development at some point, so that
there is always something stable to use while we (and other people
that must have whatever cool new features we added) get the next
series into shape.

You'd have a point if 0.6 was deleted the second 1.0 came out, but its
been a year and I've still not turned away a 0.6 bug yet.