On 25/06/2013, at 6:32 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <l...@suse.com> wrote:
> On 2013-06-25T10:16:58, Andrey Groshev <gre...@yandex.ru> wrote: > >> Ok, I recently became engaged in the PСMK, so for me it is a surprize. >> The more so in all the major linux distributions version 1.1.х. > > Pacemaker has very strong regression and system tests, and barring > accidents, it is usually very safe to always deploy the latest version - > even if it is "unstable". Right, unstable for Pacemaker means APIs and feature sets. If its super buggy it doesn't get released (or even merged into the ClusterLabs repo). > > Perhaps a numbering scheme like the Linux kernel would fit better than a > stable/unstable branch distinction. Changes that deserve the "unstable" > term are really really rare (and I'm sure we've all learned from them), > so it may be better to then just have a slightly longer test cycle for > these. What about the API changes? _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
