On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 18:21, Lars Marowsky-Bree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > where should we maintain CTS? > > Pacemaker has it's own fork of it, at this point in time. > > But I think CTS makes sense for heartbeat to have too, as _someone_ > might still care for the v1 functionality, and it might make sense to > test just the cluster layer w/o resources. > > My preferred approach would be to create heartbeat-cts as a package, and > put CTS in there; and then, Pacemaker would just drop in the "overlays" > it needs.
wont work as you'd have multiple packages with the same files. CTStests.py, CTSaudits.py etc which are very specific to pacemaker > > That might require some cleanups to CTS, to make the CRM (as a generic > term) independent of the infrastructure layer; then, RHT could also use > the CTS-openAIS plugin below RHCS, for example. And the Pacemaker plugin > would remain unchanged, whether running on top of openAIS or heartbeat. > Yet: who would do the work? not me > > > But then, is there a future in heartbeat's _cluster infrastructure_ as > opposed to some of the supporting code? I'm not sure I see it, and then > it might make more sense to move CTS over to Pacemaker completely. yes, or at least remove anything not related to v1 testing > I'd hate to see losing the ability to test heartbeat by itself though. > > > Any comments or thoughts? > > Any takers for doing it the proper way? > > > Regards, > Lars > > -- > Teamlead Kernel, SuSE Labs, Research and Development > SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) > "Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde > > _______________________________________________________ > Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev > Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/ > _______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
