On 7/27/06, Lars Marowsky-Bree [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2006-07-27T03:26:15, linux-ha-cvs@lists.linux-ha.org wrote:
linux-ha CVS committal
Author : andrew
Host:
Project : linux-ha
Module : crm
Dir : linux-ha/crm/crmd
Modified Files:
lrm.c
Log Message:
Send
On Jun 8, 2006, at 3:58 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:On 2006-06-08T07:39:15, linux-ha-cvs@lists.linux-ha.org wrote: linux-ha CVS committalAuthor : andrewHost : Project : linux-haModule : crmDir : linux-ha/crm/pengine/testcasesModified Files: 797.dot 797.exp bad3.dot bad3.exp bad4.dot
On Jun 8, 2006, at 4:25 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:On 2006-06-08T15:58:44, Andrew Beekhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That may be a silly observation, but if you're only shifting codearound, why does this affect the testcases? not silly at all dear chap...it changes the oder actions are created in,
On 2006-05-21T16:04:24, Andrew Beekhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Though still, how would the RA inform the tools about description
defaults for this?
this is where i'm a bit lost... these aren't RA parameters so in
theory there's nothing to change right?
Ah, but they are. For example, the
On May 21, 2006, at 4:12 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:On 2006-05-21T16:04:24, Andrew Beekhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Though still, how would the RA inform the tools about description defaults for this? this is where i'm a bit lost... these aren't RA parameters so in theory there's nothing to
On May 20, 2006, at 12:26 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:On 2006-05-20T11:24:37, Andrew Beekhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: properties take precedence over instance_parameters which takeprecedence over a parent's properties and instance_parameters Ok. Second, I don't think these _should_ be instance
On 2006-05-20T12:45:36, Andrew Beekhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we'd been smart, we'd have changed instance_attributes to not
only contain (rule*, attributes), but (rule*, attributes?,
meta_attributes?) and also put these not into the OCF_RESKEY_...
space in the environment but, say,
On 2006-05-08T09:39:55, Andrew Beekhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Zhenh, for the GUI to take advantage of this it needs three options:
Stop : target_role = Stopped
Start : target_role = Started
Automatic : target_role = default (or delete the target_role nvpair
completely which I believe is
On 2006-05-08T13:26:17, Andrew Beekhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At least the aliases ought to be supported, or the comparison made
case
insensitive...
you obviously didnt see the rather large s/strcmp/strcasecmp/ commit
earlier today ;-)
Ah, that came after the mail I replied to.
On May 8, 2006, at 2:44 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
On 2006-05-08T14:16:15, Andrew Beekhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good point.
we also need to find a way to have it ignore the order things appear
in... thats going to be a major PITA
You mean within the CIB? Well, the order is defined,
On 5/8/06, Matthew Soffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has using an XSL been considered instead of a DTD ?
Matt
my understanding is that XSL will let you transform XML from one
format to another.
but that doesn't do validation as far as i can tell.
btw. were the extra changes to bootstrap ok
Correction:
My Bad. I meant XSD ( XML Schema Definition). This is an example of one I wrote for something at ISO. It allows you to define how many of a field may exist, if it is required or not. Its pretty flexible ( at least I think).
Matt
?xml version=1.0 encoding=ISO-8859-1 ?
do you know what can we use to validate xml against it?i dont see xsd in xmllintOn May 8, 2006, at 3:45 PM, Matthew Soffen wrote: Correction: My Bad. I meant XSD ( XML Schema Definition). This is an example of one I wrote for something at ISO. It allows you to define how many of a field may
On May 8, 2006, at 6:09 PM, Matthew Soffen wrote: Andrew, Mine starts: ?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ? xsd:schema xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" elementFormDefault="qualified" Not sure of the elementFormDefault is needed but (It cant hurt). I also don't think you can
Andrew,
What parts should fail ?
Matt
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 18:58 +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
so as far as i can tell, the attached files _should_ fail.
but they dont :-(
any thoughts?
On May 8, 2006, at 6:19 PM,
On May 8, 2006, at 8:04 PM, Matthew Soffen wrote: Andrew, What parts should fail ?well is has two "nodes" sections despite maxOccurs="1" :-) Matt On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 18:58 +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote: so as far as i can tell, the attached files _should_ fail. but they dont :-(
On 2006-04-21T12:32:26, Andrew Beekhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is that a warning? That's perfectly normal behaviour if several
nodes are equal - share some common attribute etc.
the extreme case is if both nodes have a score of INFINITY when
you're trying to migrate a resource
Hm, I
Good Morning,
Huang Zhen wrote:
It looks that the code deems the HA_CCMUID as group id and HA_APIGID
as user id.
Right, I just stumbled across that problem, too, The error message is:
ERROR: mask(io.c:readCibXmlFile): /var/lib/heartbeat/crm/cib.xml must be
owned and read/writeable by user 17,
On Feb 2, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
On 2006-02-02T01:56:27, linux-ha-cvs@lists.linux-ha.org wrote:
linux-ha CVS committal
Author : andrew
Host:
Project : linux-ha
Module : crm
Dir : linux-ha/crm/crmd
Modified Files:
join_client.c
Log Message:
A small
19 matches
Mail list logo
