On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 11:25 +0100, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:02, Fabio M. Di Nitto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 09:52 +0100, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 06:52, Fabio M. Di Nitto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > There is actually an important difference for me to keep them separated. > >> > > >> > Each time we do a package update, the whole set of daemons will need to > >> > go through testing again, even if they didn't change a bit. > >> > >> True. > >> > >> Random thought - how about having the resource and fence agents together? > >> Similar things with similar update frequencies... > > > > hmmm no.. same reason. they have different tasks.. different subsystems > > etc. > > They're still scripts though (and there's not much more difference > between an IP and IPMI script than there is between an IP and Apache > script). > And I'd guess that the chances of each set needing a refresh is about > the same at any given point in time...
You would still end up with the testing issue we try to avoid by keeping daemons and agents separated. Fabio _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@clusterlabs.org http://list.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
