On 31/07/2013, at 5:11 AM, David Vossel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Andrew Beekhof" <[email protected]> >> To: "General Linux-HA mailing list" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 7:46:25 AM >> Subject: Re: [Linux-HA] Antw: Re: establishing a new resource-agent package >> provider >> >> >> On 30/07/2013, at 4:21 PM, Ulrich Windl <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>>>>> David Vossel <[email protected]> schrieb am 30.07.2013 um 01:20 in >>>>>> Nachricht >>> <[email protected]>: >>> >>> [...] >>>>> How does this compare to the Red Hat fence/resource-agent packages? I'm >>>>> very happy to see "heartbeat" and it's inherent confusion go away, so I >>>>> am fundamentally for this. I only question "core" and how it will relate >>>>> to those fence and resource agents. >>>> >>>> "core" would only be related to the ocf standard. I don't think this >>>> should >>>> have any relation to the fence agents. >>> [...] >>> >>> I wonder: "ocf:base:..." or "ocf:standard:..." instaed of "ocf:core:..." >>> >>> My personal associations are a bit like this: >>> core == essential >>> base == basic functions >> >> many are not basic >> >>> standard == somewhat standardized >> >> nor are they a standard (although they do conform to one)... they're just the >> ones that the people upstream ships. >> I like this one the least. > > yeah, standard sounds confusing to me. Splitting agents between core and > base is going to be difficult as well. If we did something like that, I'd > probably want to do 'core' and 'extended'... where core supported agents are > ones the community takes ownership of, and extended agents are agents that > exist in the project, but are only maintained by a subset of the community. > I don't really want to do something like this though. > >> >> "common" perhaps? > > perhaps, but I still prefer 'core' over 'common' > > These are the 'core' resource agents that the ocf community supports. Agents > outside of the 'core' provider are supported by different projects and > subsets of the community (like linbit and the drbd agent).
I'm convinced. Lars? > To me 'common' refers to something that is shared... like a library or > something. That probably isn't what we're going for. > > -- Vossel > >> I don't much care beyond saying that continuing to call them "heartbeat" is a >> continuing source of confusion to people just arriving to our set of >> projects. >> Calling them "heartbeat" made sense originally, but now its an historical >> anachronism. IMHO. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Ulrich >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Linux-HA mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha >>> See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Linux-HA mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha >> See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems >> > _______________________________________________ > Linux-HA mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha > See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
