On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Iustin Pop <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi! > I understand your point, but I'm not sure if this is a good idea. The > temporary failure could be hiding the fact that the node might be > healthy and have the wrong helper, etc. True > I would rather say: > - any failure aborts the operation: per the other code, broken nodes > should be offlined anyway (and yes, you need to skip an offline node) > - optionally, failures could be forced via the --force flag Ok for a stricter check, but are you sure that it's a good idea to introduce a force option to modify cluster configuration? If the force flag is used just in a few places then it's not so intuitive for the users. On the other hand if it's used to override all the checks then things might get very inconsistent (I agree to say that it's users fault to use --force without realizing the consequences very well, but still...). Thank you, Luca
