On 2013-06-28T11:11:00, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> >> Maybe you're right, maybe I should stop fighting it and go with the
> >> firefox approach.
> >> That certainly seemed to piss a lot of people off though...
> > If there's one message I've learned in 13 years of work on Linux HA,
> > then it is th
On 28/06/2013, at 12:52 AM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
>> Maybe you're right, maybe I should stop fighting it and go with the
>> firefox approach.
>> That certainly seemed to piss a lot of people off though...
>
> If there's one message I've learned in 13 years of work on Linux HA,
> then it is
On 2013-06-27T20:50:34, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> There was one :-)
> I merged the best bits of three parallel CPG code paths.
> The things that prompted the extra bits in one also applied to the others.
Ah, that wasn't so obvious to me when I tried making sense of the
commit. ;-) But that's clear
On 27/06/2013, at 5:40 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2013-06-27T14:28:19, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't say the 6 months between 1.1.7 and 1.1.8 was a particularly
>> aggressive release cycle.
>
> For the amount of changes in there, I think yes. And the intrusive ones
> didn't s
On 2013-06-27T14:28:19, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> I wouldn't say the 6 months between 1.1.7 and 1.1.8 was a particularly
> aggressive release cycle.
For the amount of changes in there, I think yes. And the intrusive ones
didn't show up all at the beginning of that cycle, either. That just
made in
On 26/06/2013, at 10:37 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2013-06-26T21:31:14, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
>>> Distributions can take care of them when they integrate them; basically
>>> they'll trickle through until the whole stack the distributions ship
>>> builds again.
>> If we let 2.0.x be a
On 2013-06-26T21:31:14, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> > Distributions can take care of them when they integrate them; basically
> > they'll trickle through until the whole stack the distributions ship
> > builds again.
> If we let 2.0.x be anything like 1.1.x, I suspect this would be rather
> difficul
On 26/06/2013, at 7:30 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2013-06-25T20:28:29, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
>>> 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
On 2013-06-25T20:28:29, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> > 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 bette
On 25/06/2013, at 6:32 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2013-06-25T10:16:58, Andrey Groshev 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 syst
On 2013-06-25T10:16:58, Andrey Groshev 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
25.06.2013, 09:49, "Andrew Beekhof" :
> On 25/06/2013, at 2:33 PM, Andrey Groshev wrote:
>
>> 25.06.2013, 04:46, "Andrew Beekhof" :
>>> On 24/06/2013, at 3:44 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
24.06.2013 04:17, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> Either people have given up on testing, or rc5[1]
On 25/06/2013, at 2:33 PM, Andrey Groshev wrote:
>
>
> 25.06.2013, 04:46, "Andrew Beekhof" :
>> On 24/06/2013, at 3:44 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
>>
>>> 24.06.2013 04:17, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
Either people have given up on testing, or rc5[1] is looking good for the
final rel
25.06.2013, 04:46, "Andrew Beekhof" :
> On 24/06/2013, at 3:44 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
>
>> 24.06.2013 04:17, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>> Either people have given up on testing, or rc5[1] is looking good for the
>>> final release.
>> Is it going to be 1.1.10 or 1.2.0 (2.0.0)?
>
> First i
On 24/06/2013, at 3:44 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
> 24.06.2013 04:17, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> Either people have given up on testing, or rc5[1] is looking good for the
>> final release.
>
> Is it going to be 1.1.10 or 1.2.0 (2.0.0)?
First its going to be 1.1.10 and, if there is still no-o
24.06.2013 04:17, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> Either people have given up on testing, or rc5[1] is looking good for the
> final release.
Is it going to be 1.1.10 or 1.2.0 (2.0.0)?
>
> So just a reminder, we're particularly looking for feedback in the following
> areas:
>
> | plugin-based clusters
Either people have given up on testing, or rc5[1] is looking good for the final
release.
So just a reminder, we're particularly looking for feedback in the following
areas:
| plugin-based clusters, ACLs, the new –ban and –clear commands, and admin
actions
| (such as moving and stopping resour
17 matches
Mail list logo
