Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2006-08-08T05:42:34, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> + + KNOWN BUGS:
>> + - When running a cluster of nodes of very different speeds temporary
>> + membership anomalies may occasionally be seen. These correct
>> + themselves and don't appear to be harmful. They typically
>> + include a message something like this:
>> + WARN: Ignoring HA message (op=vote) from XXX: not in our membership
>> list
>
> Hi, I think that for a known bug, we ought to reference the
> corresponding bugzilla entry, so people can track the progress of this
> one.
>
> But, honestly, we got any number of open bugs (though with confusing
> version numbers in bugzilla - I _still_ haven't heard back as to how
> we're supposed to be using this...) - I'd rather include a link to a
> bugzilla search, and only list the non-harmless known bugs.
>
> Otherwise, that list is going to get fairly large.
I noted this one because it's a real bug, and it really happens in
testing. I didn't reference the bugzillas because I think they're more
confusing than helpful.
Lots of the others either don't ever happen during tests, or they're
enhancements from some point of view.
I haven't been referencing the whole set of bugs, just the set I had to
ignore in order to pass the release. This seems like a perfectly
reasonable thing to do.
--
Alan Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Openness is the foundation and preservative of friendship... Let me
claim from you at all times your undisguised opinions." - William
Wilberforce
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
