[Pacemaker] Shouldn't colocation -inf: be mandatory?

[Gianluca Cecchi]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Andrew Beekhof <andrew at beekhof.net> wrote:

>
> >
> > But that is for 1.1 branch that is not considered as "stable"...
>
> No, existing functionality its very stable.
> Its just the new features that might have some extra corner cases
> we've not seen exercised yet.
>
> Put it this way, 1.1 is what Red Hat and SUSE ship.
>

And in fact I saw it and its documentation files in rhel6 beta2... and it
was not so clear to me the situation... now it is...
>From your link below, now I see that we have also pacemaker 1.1 prebuilt
binaries for rh el 5... Good!
So for the future, the upcoming RHEL/CentOS 6.x will include ootb the 1.1
without clusterlabs repo possibly ?


>  Correct.
>
> http://theclusterguy.clusterlabs.org/post/441442543/new-pacemaker-release-series
>

Thanks!
After reading it, one question:
To understand what is a schema and sentences such as

   - If the existing syntax is all you need, consider *1.1* with the *
   pacemaker-1.0* schema.
   - If you want to try a new stable feature, use *1.1* with the *
   pacemaker-1.2* schema.
   - If you want to try a new experimental feature, use *1.1* with the *
   pacemaker-1.1* schema.

what do I need?
Does this correspond only to have 1.1 installed and set the "validate-with"
parameter for example to
validate-with="pacemaker-1.0"
?
And in this case I'll receive an error if tryign to set a 1.1 feature?

Sorry for going off topic wth the original thread...


> > Will it be backported in upcoming 1.0.9 (future stable update planned for
> > June)?
>
> Already done.
>
Thanks again


Gianluca
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/pacemaker/attachments/20100615/903ba52b/attachment-0001.html>