On 22/11/17 15:28 -0600, David Teigland wrote: > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 03:08:19PM -0600, David Teigland wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 02:34:31PM -0600, Chris Feist wrote: >>> lvm2: >>> Good - It's obvious it's a newer/better version of the lvm agent. >>> Bad - It may be associated with the lvm2 commands which we are working on >>> phasing out. >> >> Unfortunately, the lvm project used the name "lvm2" to mean something >> different, so giving a new meaning to the "lvm" vs "lvm2" distinction >> would be confusing. > > If nobody else finds this confusing, then don't let this get in the way of > doing lvm2. > >> lvmvg or lvmlv or lvm_vg/lvm_lv > > I don't mind these. Another idea is "lvm_agent", "lvm_ra". I don't have > a strong opinion about any of them.
What about VolumeGroup (in the tradition of Filesystem, for instance)? Or why not shoot for an LVM merge (plus proper versioning to tell the difference)? -- Jan (Poki)
pgp2mkwURRAsc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Developers mailing list Developers@clusterlabs.org http://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
