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

[Vadym Chepkov]

On Jun 7, 2010, at 8:04 AM, Vadym Chepkov wrote:
> 
> I filed bug 2435, glad to hear "it's not me"
> 


Andrew closed this bug (http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2435) as resolved, 
but I respectfully disagree.

I will try to explain a problem again in this list.

lets assume you want to have several resources running on the same node.
They are independent, so if one is going down, others shouldn't be stopped.
You would do this by using a resource set, like this:

primitive dummy1 ocf:pacemaker:Dummy
primitive dummy2 ocf:pacemaker:Dummy
primitive dummy3 ocf:pacemaker:Dummy
colocation together inf: ( dummy1 dummy2 dummy3 )

and I expect them to run on the same host, but they are not and I attached hb_report to the case to prove it.

Andrew closed it with the comment "Thats because you have sequential="false" for the colocation set." 
But sequential="false" means doesn't matter what order do they start. colocation still has to be honored.

If I am wrong, what syntax I should use to achieve the described configuration?

Thank you,
Vadym Chepkov