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

[Lars Marowsky-Bree]

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.

> 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.

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

> 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.

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 ;-)

> 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. 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.

> > 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? ;-)


Regards,
    Lars

-- 
Architect Storage/HA
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde