Donnie Berkholz schrieb:
We might benefit from splitting the clustering packages into two
separate groups for high-availability and high-performance computing.
This will help to keep the bugs a bit cleaner so each group of folks
will have a clearer idea of what they need to do.
Does anyone
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
We might benefit from splitting the clustering packages into two
separate groups for high-availability and high-performance computing.
This will help to keep the bugs a bit cleaner so each group of folks
will have a clearer idea of what they need to do.
Does anyone
Andrew D. Fant wrote:
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
We might benefit from splitting the clustering packages into two
separate groups for high-availability and high-performance computing.
This will help to keep the bugs a bit cleaner so each group of folks
will have a clearer idea of what they need to
Philipp Riegger wrote:
On Dec 11, 2006, at 9:11 AM, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Does anyone else have thoughts on this?
I think, hac-cluster and hpc-cluster sound strange, since c in hpc and
hac already stands for cluster.
or computing...
--
gentoo-cluster@gentoo.org mailing list
Le lundi 11 décembre 2006 02:11, Donnie Berkholz a écrit :
We might benefit from splitting the clustering packages into two
separate groups for high-availability and high-performance computing.
This will help to keep the bugs a bit cleaner so each group of folks
will have a clearer idea of
We might benefit from splitting the clustering packages into two
separate groups for high-availability and high-performance computing.
This will help to keep the bugs a bit cleaner so each group of folks
will have a clearer idea of what they need to do.
Does anyone else have thoughts on this?
