On 2007-07-16T16:18:00, David Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think anyone is implying that you are deliberately releaseing buggy
> releases, but that's not the same as saying that the releases have all gone
> through the same testing.
The fact is that those releases have gone through _at least as much_
testing as Alan's, by people who probably understand the code better
than he does. I can see how that must be a frustrating realization, but
it is still true.
And in particular, doing such re-edits while 2.0.8 is still the latest
public release - in effect pushing that over those "unofficial" builds -
is madness.
Alan isn't supporting the parts which change the most, and which need th
most support. Andrew and we are. It should be our call of what we
support.
Another suggestion which has come up in the past, and which I'm thinking
is a good idea, is to split the package into several - Alan maintains
and releases the mostly stable membership/infrastructure package, and we
can decouple the LRM, CRM code.
I think that would go quite a long way to solve a number of problems.
> what I am seeing as the biggest stumbling block (although I admit that
> there may be others, including personal feelings and control) is the
> testing of a release candidate on the hell cluster.
Don't make it bigger than it is ;-) It _is_ useful, but as Andrew
correctly points out, it also isn't as useful as it used to be. The 16
node cluster which Andrew uses in Nuremberg is also a bunch of - by
todays's standards - rather slow machines x86/32bit, I have a pretty
large virtualized setup right next to me (x86_64), we have z-Series
testing.
We get compile testing on almost all distributions.
> I (reluctantly) admit that this may be the case, but I will still argue
> that the closer everyone's release can be to the mainline the better. The
> current situation is about as bad as I've seen heartbeat get (although I
> haven't been paying close attention, there may have been other times) due
> to the long time since the last official release and the numerous bugs
> involved.
Yes, from a point of the release cycle length, it's never been worse. If
one takes general project leadership, the phase to 2.0.0 and some later
releases have been ... pretty bad.
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 mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
