On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 18:37, Joel Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:25:30AM -0600, David Teigland wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:18:13AM +0100, Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote: >> > At this point we haven't really settled how many (sub) project will be >> > created out of this split. This will come once we agree how to split. >> >> I like the third option as long as the number of new git trees doesn't >> explode (obviously no one wants 10 new git trees.) Not to get ahead of >> you, but for my own curiosity I looked at what minimum number of git trees >> I'd have to start juggling... it's not too bad, but more than this might >> get out of hand. > > Obviously I like the third option, as I proposed it :-) But I > think Dave's really nailed how to split it out. Originally, I expected > that his fence.git, fence-agents.git, cman.git, and rgmanager.git would > stay together as one tree, and that gfs and its utilities would also be > one tree.
I'd have thought fence.git and fence-agents.git in one and cman.git and rgmanager.git in another. But I may be missing some of the interdependencies. > Looking at it, though, I think he's right we split them out. > That's a result from our plan at the summit to start converging fence > agents and then eventually move fencing up the stack. I think we can do that and have them stay together - for instance we're thinking of putting the resource agents and the lrmd which drives them together in a repo - but I don't care that much either way. _______________________________________________ Ocfs2-devel mailing list [email protected] http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel
