[Pacemaker] Release model

[Lars Marowsky-Bree]

On 2013-06-28T22:04:48, Andrew Beekhof <andrew at beekhof.net> wrote:

> I think he did actually.

Well, yes, but the hg history or reading the existing code would
probably have been quite helpful. I'll take "not well documented", but
it's hard to say the rewrite was handled very well. But I don't want to
get drawn into this too much though, it's side tracking this
discussion. And done by now. And hopefully we'll not do something like
that again ;-)

> > I'm not sure there's a huge downside in it for you?
> Ok, lets take attrd for example - which I've been wanted to rewrite to be truly atomic for half a decade or more.

If it's rewritten in a way that doesn't affect external users but that
can be covered well by tests, I'd not think that having two versions of
the code in parallel would make sense, yes.

> In my perfect world, under this model, RH would dip into the releases and take every 2nd or 3rd, whatever was ready at the time.

Yes, so effectively what SLE HA is already doing. Why not live in that
perfect world now! ;-)

> Btw. _IF_ we do this, I'd be wanting to go with Pacemaker-$x (no .y or .z).
> We shouldn't create the impression of doing release series when we're not.

I was mostly stealing the numbering scheme from the Linux kernel. But if
you're mostly thinking about this in terms of Firefox, sure. I don't
really mind.


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