Hi there, I think there should be a more formal voting, like on some issue trackers.
Else the objectives can be dominated by the opinion of whoever writes them on the wiki. ;-) Somtimes it cam be tricky to follow and evaluate all opinions voiced on a mailing list. []s, Fernando Lozano > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Fernando Lozano > <ferna...@lozano.eti.br <mailto:ferna...@lozano.eti.br>> wrote: > > I agree. Is there a way for voting on those issues, so this kind > of feedback can be prioritized during development of the updated > LPI exams? > > > The way to "vote" is simple ... "volunteer" to write them. ;) > > I already throw a lot of work Matt et al.'s way with my opinionated > views. I've probably over-shared on not just storage, but now > Samba4/SSSD. > > With that said ... since I brought up DM-MPIO with the iSCSI > initiator, I'll volunteer myself to write an objective for > DeviceMapper LVM+MPIO. > > I need to look through all of the objectives on the Wiki, and decide > how one Objective could be written. But I think we need to break out a > dedicated 200 level Objective for this. > > After all, when one usually uses DM-MPIO, one usually modifies the > DM-LVM rules too -- especially for Boot-from-SAN. E.g., filter out > the /dev/sd* devices, and only use the /dev/mapper/multipath-* > devices, for LVM. > > > -- > Bryan J Smith - Professional, Technical Annoyance > b.j.smith at ieee.org <http://ieee.org> - > http://www.linkedin.com/in/bjsmith > > > > _______________________________________________ > lpi-examdev mailing list > lpi-examdev@lpi.org > http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
_______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list lpi-examdev@lpi.org http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
