On Thu, 2017-11-23 at 16:54 +0800, Eric Ren wrote: > Hello, > > > What about VolumeGroup (in the tradition of Filesystem, for > > instance)? > > In the LVM-activate, we will support both all VG activation and only > one > specified LV > activation depending on the parameters. > > Or why not shoot for an LVM merge (plus proper versioning to tell > > the difference)? > > You mean merging LVM-activate with the existing LVM? Here was a long > discussion about that: > > https://github.com/ClusterLabs/resource-agents/pull/1040 >
Looking at that discussion, I would agree that merging the two agents would be ideal, but this case is an exception because the parameters have changed too much. As a user posted on that thread, different sites will reasonably want to migrate their LVM clusters on different schedules, so even if the new agent is always better, having both for a long transition period makes sense. My suggestion would be to add a paragraph to each agent's <longdesc> describing the situation and why a user might prefer one agent over the other (the same paragraph to both). The description is likely the first place a user will look if they're confused about why there are two agents. If the new agent becomes the clear preference, we can eventually add a "deprecated" notice to the old agent's description. (And if the proposed OCF overhaul ever comes to fruition, there may be a formal means of deprecating it as well.) -- Ken Gaillot <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
