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

[Andrew Beekhof]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic <dejanmm at fastmail.fm> wrote:

> colocation not-together -inf: d1 d2 d3

I think there is a problem with this syntax, particularly for +inf.

Consider:
  colocation together1 inf: d1 d2

This means d1 must run where d2 is.

But if I add d3:
  colocation together1 inf: d1 d2 d3

Now the original constraint is reversed and d2 must run where d1 is
(think of how groups work).
(Unless you're modifying the order).

I think we need:
   no brackets: exactly 2 resources must be specified
   () brackets: a non-sequential set
   [] brackets: a sequential set