On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Florian Haas <florian.h...@linbit.com> wrote: > On 04/20/2010 07:03 AM, Tim Serong wrote: >> On 4/20/2010 at 06:48 AM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <l...@novell.com> wrote: >>> In general, I think the ability to depreciate functionality is needed, >>> but shouldn't be slip-streamed into a minor dot release, and we first >>> need to do some more home work to get our infrastructure right before we >>> should consider breaking customer configurations. >> >> This'd be easiest if the metadata explicitly said an RA was deprecated, >> for example something like: >> >> <?xml version="1.0"?> >> <!DOCTYPE resource-agent SYSTEM "ra-api-1.dtd"> >> <resource-agent name="Evmsd" version="0.9" deprecated="true"> >> ... >> >> ATM, the deprecated RAs all seem to follow the same convention of using >> "(deprecated)" in the shortdesc, e.g.: >> >> <shortdesc lang="en">Controls clustered EVMS volume management >> (deprecated)</shortdesc> >> >> ...but grepping arbitrary text out of a description always irks me. >> It's a little inexact. > > I'll shoulder the blame for that. I came up with that "(deprecated)" > kludge for fear of lmb jumping in circles about an unauthorized > modification of the RA metadata schema. But now you started it! Which > allows me to wholeheartedly second your motion.
Which brings up another good point... Can we please make OCF relevant again by converting the repo to Hg and allowing access? _______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: Linux-HA-Dev@lists.linux-ha.org http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
