On 04/20/2010 07:03 AM, Tim Serong wrote: > On 4/20/2010 at 06:48 AM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <[email protected]> wrote: >> In general, I think the ability to depreciate functionality is needed, >> but shouldn't be slip-streamed into a minor dot release, and we first >> need to do some more home work to get our infrastructure right before we >> should consider breaking customer configurations. > > This'd be easiest if the metadata explicitly said an RA was deprecated, > for example something like: > > <?xml version="1.0"?> > <!DOCTYPE resource-agent SYSTEM "ra-api-1.dtd"> > <resource-agent name="Evmsd" version="0.9" deprecated="true"> > ... > > ATM, the deprecated RAs all seem to follow the same convention of using > "(deprecated)" in the shortdesc, e.g.: > > <shortdesc lang="en">Controls clustered EVMS volume management > (deprecated)</shortdesc> > > ...but grepping arbitrary text out of a description always irks me. > It's a little inexact.
I'll shoulder the blame for that. I came up with that "(deprecated)" kludge for fear of lmb jumping in circles about an unauthorized modification of the RA metadata schema. But now you started it! Which allows me to wholeheartedly second your motion. Cheers, Florian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
