[Pacemaker] Confusing semantics of colocation sets

[Phil Frost]

On 07/02/2012 12:50 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> What is being mangled actually? The crm shell does what is
> possible given the pacemaker RNG schema. It is unfortunate that
> the design is slightly off, but that cannot be fixed in the crm
> syntax.

I will demonstrate my point by offering a quiz to the list. Tell me, 
without running these examples, what effect they will have:

[1] colocation foo inf: a b ( c:Master d )
[2] colocation foo inf: a b
[3] colocation foo inf: a b c
[4] colocation foo inf: a b c:Master

Hints:

- there are three resource sets in [1]
- [2] is not a subnet of [3]
- [4] is not ordered a, b, c