On 2008-08-21T20:43:55, Andrew Beekhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My preferred approach would be to create heartbeat-cts as a package, and
> > put CTS in there; and then, Pacemaker would just drop in the "overlays"
> > it needs.
> wont work as you'd have multiple packages with the same files.
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 18:21, Lars Marowsky-Bree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> where should we maintain CTS?
>
> Pacemaker has it's own fork of it, at this point in time.
>
> But I think CTS makes sense for heartbeat to have too, as _someone_
> might still care for the v1 functionality, and
Hi,
where should we maintain CTS?
Pacemaker has it's own fork of it, at this point in time.
But I think CTS makes sense for heartbeat to have too, as _someone_
might still care for the v1 functionality, and it might make sense to
test just the cluster layer w/o resources.
My preferred approach
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 03:14:08PM +0200, Michael Schwartzkopff wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 21. August 2008 14:50 schrieb Lars Marowsky-Bree:
> > Hi,
> >
> > in preparation for 3.0.0, which is bound to happen eventually when it is
> > ready, I am happy to announce 2.99.0 as a _beta_ version.
> (...)
>
On 2008-08-19T15:02:09, Rasto Levrinc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - Remove code which depends on pacemaker (mgmt, dopd, CIM/SNMP)
> > - Remove unmaintained code (telecom/).
> dopd does not depend on crm directly, but it uses clplumbing. Can it stay
> there?
Ah, right, dopd stays then I think.
Hi,
in preparation for 3.0.0, which is bound to happen eventually when it is
ready, I am happy to announce 2.99.0 as a _beta_ version.
2.99.0 introduces significant changes:
- 2.99.0 removes code now maintained outside heartbeat such as the CRM
(now Pacemaker), thus everything which depends on
