Hi Simon,
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 05:02:22PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> Hi Willy,
>
> sorry for not responding earlier.
no problem, I know from your other patches I see on other lists that
you're busy on several projects :-)
> I will likely have more questions regarding your review
> but at this point one in particular comes to mind:
> are you still interested in removing lb-agent-chk?
> If so I think it is a reasonable idea as it should avoid
> complexity both in this series and in the future.
I personally have nothing against this, but we should check with
Malcolm & his team. I mean, there are four categories of haproxy
users :
- users of a stable branch : no regression is allowed, we must
support what was offered ;
- users of a development branch : we must stay compatible with
the previous stable branch but we can break the compatibility
from time to time between dev versions provided that the
features cas still be implemented (mainly config language
changes). lb-agent-chk fits into that category.
- users of appliances which embed a dev version (lb.org & aloha).
These appliances want to maintain config compatibility with their
previous versions but they can embed a migration tool to convert
the config (we've done that for years in the aloha and I think
that lb.org does the same). So we just need to ensure that the
migration path is possible.
- those who use it as shipped in obscure products with no serious
version management, or who use it to do more things than advertised
in their products : we can't care about them and they get what they
deserve if they use closed or non-seriously maintained products.
So check with Malcolm and his team, and feel free to remove the feature
if they agree. I'm not aware of any Aloha customer using it yet, and we
can include that in the migration script for next release anyway.
Last point, I'm still working on the connection revamping in a separate
branch and am making good progress. I think I should be able to emit
dev20 in a few weeks, do you think you could have something by then,
or should I wait a little bit longer before issuing dev20 or should I
emit it without your series and postpone it for next one ? I'm not
pressuring you, just let me know, any option is fine.
Thanks!
Willy
