On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 04:47:16PM +0100, Luca Bigliardi wrote: > 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...).
That's why I said "optionally" - let's leave it out for now… iustin
