On 14 May 2014, at 3:53 pm, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Thank you for comments.
Do you guys have any timeframe for moving away from 1.0.x?
The 1.1 series is over 4 years old now and quite usable :-)
There is really a (low) limit to how much effort I can put into
Hi Andrew,
It is not necessary at all to revise it for Pacemaker1.0.
Maybe we need to add KnownIssues.md to the repo for anyone thats slow to
update.
Are there any 1.0 bugs that really really need fixing or shall we move them
all to the KnownIssues file?
That's a good idea.
In the user
On 15 May 2014, at 9:54 am, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
Hi Andrew,
It is not necessary at all to revise it for Pacemaker1.0.
Maybe we need to add KnownIssues.md to the repo for anyone thats slow to
update.
Are there any 1.0 bugs that really really need fixing or shall we move
Hi Andrwe,
Here we go:
https://github.com/ClusterLabs/pacemaker-1.0/blob/master/README.md
If any additional bugs are found in 1.0, we should create a new entry at
bugs.clusterlabs.org, add it to the above README and as long as 1.1 is
unaffected: close the bug as WONTFIX.
All
On 9 May 2014, at 11:24 am, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
Hi All,
We confirmed a problem when we performed clean up of the Master/Slave
resource in Pacemaker1.0.
When this problem occurs, probe processing is not carried out.
I registered the problem with Bugzilla.
*
Hi Andrew,
Thank you for comments.
Do you guys have any timeframe for moving away from 1.0.x?
The 1.1 series is over 4 years old now and quite usable :-)
There is really a (low) limit to how much effort I can put into support for
it.
We gradually move from Pacemaker1.0 to Pacemaker1.1,
Hi All,
We confirmed a problem when we performed clean up of the Master/Slave
resource in Pacemaker1.0.
When this problem occurs, probe processing is not carried out.
I registered the problem with Bugzilla.
* http://bugs.clusterlabs.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5211
In addition, I wrote the method of
