Hi Willy, Le Mardi 2 Février 2010 23:39:22, Willy Tarreau a écrit : > at first I was hesitating because those DOWN/MAINT can become quite > confusing, but after some thinking, the current situation is already > confusing. > > So I think I'll merge this one but if someone comes up with a less > confusing name than "DOWN/MAINT", I'll happily apply it. > > In my opinion the real state is MAINT, and we may complete it with > some info indicating that it was propagated from another server. > Maybe something such as "MAINT(via)" or "MAINT(auto)" or anything > in that vein could be more explicit, I don't know.
"MAINT(via)" looks fine. OK, I'll make the modification so if you want to wait before meging, don't hesitate ;) > Cyril, could you please add the new states to the doc ? Yes, I can add some details in the "disable server" section. Is it where you want an update ? -- Cyril Bonté
