[Pacemaker] Announce: pcs / pcs-gui (Pacemaker/Corosync Configuration System)

[Andrew Beekhof]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb at suse.com> wrote:
> On 2012-06-04T11:21:57, Andrew Beekhof <andrew at beekhof.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> I am getting a slightly defensive-to-aggressive vibe from your response
> to Florian. Can we tune that down? I much prefer to do the shouting at
> each other in person, because then the gestures come across much more
> vividly and the food is better. Thank you ;-)
>
>> Now you're just being silly.
>> Are you seriously claiming interactivity is the only way to discover
>> information about a program?
>> Quick, someone tell the iproute developers that no-one can add an IP
>> address because 'ip help' and 'ip addr help' aren't interactive!
>
> I think the interactive tab completion is indeed cool. No, of course
> it's not the only way, but it does make things easier. You are of course
> right it doesn't need to be baked in; one can also dump the syntax tree
> and have bash/zsh/emacs do the completion. That does make dynamic
> completion a bit less efficient, though.

True.  But "less efficient" is a LONG way from sensationalist words
like "impossible".
It's this kind of tired hyperbole that tends to generate a
"defensive-to-aggressive vibe" on my part.

>> Plenty of people didn't see the point of Pacemaker either.
>> And I don't recall anyone saying "they hate the existing [resource
>> manager] and this effort solves all their problems" about the first
>> few years Pacemaker development.
>
> I don't quite see this is a valid comparison, sorry. The crm was
> developed because the existing "resource manager" that heartbeat
> implemented was way too limited; the CRM was something radically
> different. That was a huge effort that couldn't possibly have been
> implemented in an incremental fashion.

My point would be that despite the above, there /still/ wasn't the
level of public outcry that Florian apparently deems necessary for new
work.
And if Pacemaker couldn't generate it, it makes an unfair criteria to
require of pcs.

>
> (When we're talking about Pacemaker (versus the crm), it is obvious that
> that wasn't really a technology-driven move.)

With the implication being that technology-driven moves are bad?
How do you explain HAWK then? Shouldn't Tim have written a patch to
py-gui instead?

>
>> Open source has a long and glorious history of people saying "I'm
>> going to try and do it this way" and Chris has every right to try
>> something different.
>> Personally I'm hoping a little friendly competition will result in
>> both projects finding new ways to improve usability.
>
> Of course. Still, people will ask "which one should I choose", and we
> need to be able to answer that.

The same way the Linux community has answers for:
- sh/bash/tsch/zsh/dash...
- gnome/kde/enlightnment/twm/fvwm...
- fedora/opensuse/debian/ubuntu/leaf...
- mysql/postgres/oracle/sybase
- ext2,3,4/reiserfs/btrfs...
- GFS2/OCFS2
- dm_replicator/drbd
- selinux/apparmor
- iscsi clients
- chat/irc/email clients
- programming languages
- editors
- pacemaker GUIs

Linux is hardly a bastion of "there can be only one", so I find the
level of doom people are expressing over a new cli to be disingenuous.

Every argument made so far applies equally to HAWK and the Linbit GUI,
yet there was no outcry when they were announced.
It seems duplication is only bad to those that aren't responsible for it.

> And as a community, yes, I think we also should think about the cost of
> choice to users - as well as the benefits.
>
> Even developers will ask questions like "I want to do <X>; where do I
> contribute that?"
>
> I like things that make it easier for users to use our stuff, and still
> I need to understand how to advise them what to do when, and how the
> various toys in the playground relate ;-)

Presumably you'll continue to advise SLES customers to use whatever
you ship there.
Doesn't seem too complex to me.

>
>> You don't have to like that there is a new shell, but can we
>> concentrate on being constructive about Chris' work (or at least be
>> respectful of his right to continue it) please?
>
> It is of course his right to continue it. But you are trying to shut up
> critical questions, which isn't nice either.

"New cli bad! Hulk smash!" is hardly what I'd call a critical question.

Chris had the requirements from product management, did an analysis of
the alternatives, picked one and got to work.
He doesn't need our approval to do pcs, so focusing on that aspect
seems more 'moot' than 'critical'.

> In particular since Florian
> (and, well, I guess myself) aren't asking anything users/customers won't
> ask either, so having answers would be good.

Questions I have no problem with, but "I don't see the point" and
"[thing that /is/ possible] is impossible" are not questions.
Nor are they particularly helpful.

>
>> > Assuming that this effort means you're planning to kick the existing
>> > crm shell out of Fedora, I think that's a really really bad idea.
>> Actually since its not part of Pacemaker anymore*, someone would need
>> to sponsor it through Fedora's new package process.
>> Anyone is welcome to become a packager and do so.
>
> Would that not have been easier than writing a new shell? ;-)

The packager also has to do support.  Presumably this was considered
along with the ability to add the desired features.