On 29/06/2013, at 12:15 AM, Digimer wrote:
> On 06/28/2013 08:04 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> Under this model, not only do I have to find the time to write and test the
>> new addition, but I also have to:
>> * keep maintaining the old code until... when?
>> * probably write and maintain a com
On 28/06/2013, at 11:37 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not sure there's a huge downside in it for you?
>> Ok, lets take attrd for example - which I've been wanted to rewrite to be
>> truly atomic for half a decade or more.
>
> If it's rewritten in a way that doesn't affect external
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 03:32:05PM +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2013-06-28T14:49:06, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
>
> > > If cluster-glue's LRM had had such a suite, it'd certainly have
> > > helped tons.)
> > It did have a regression suite.
>
> Yes, well, but it didn't test for LRM_MAX_CHI
On 06/28/2013 08:04 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> Under this model, not only do I have to find the time to write and test the
> new addition, but I also have to:
> * keep maintaining the old code until... when?
> * probably write and maintain a compatibility layer
> * make it possible to choose whic
On 2013-06-28T22:04:48, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> I think he did actually.
Well, yes, but the hg history or reading the existing code would
probably have been quite helpful. I'll take "not well documented", but
it's hard to say the rewrite was handled very well. But I don't want to
get drawn into
On 2013-06-28T14:49:06, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> > If cluster-glue's LRM had had such a suite, it'd certainly have
> > helped tons.)
> It did have a regression suite.
Yes, well, but it didn't test for LRM_MAX_CHILDREN or the secret
support, for example. So it didn't really document the interfa
Hi Lars,
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 12:59:22PM +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
[...]
> If
> cluster-glue's LRM had had such a suite, it'd certainly have helped
> tons.)
It did have a regression suite.
Thanks,
Dejan
___
Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker
On 28/06/2013, at 8:59 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2013-06-28T18:41:35, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
>>> There's an exception: dropping commonly used external interfaces (say,
>>> "ptest") needs to be announced a few releases in advance before enacted
>>> upstream. (And if Enterprise distrib
On 2013-06-28T18:41:35, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> > There's an exception: dropping commonly used external interfaces (say,
> > "ptest") needs to be announced a few releases in advance before enacted
> > upstream. (And if Enterprise distributions want to keep something, they
> > have time to prepare
