On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:06, Fabio M. Di Nitto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
Top-posting...
#1 is what the current "situation" evolved from so I think its pretty
clear that despite the best of intentions, it doesn't work out (far
too easy for cross-dependancies to develop).
#2 - I share chrissie's feelings on this one ;-)
#3 - Thats got my vote - basically what we did with Pacemaker.
The biggest question here is do you want old versions of the split out
code to be buildable?
I am not 100% sure I understand what you mean..
Perhaps an example from our split...
The Pacemaker repo includes the _entire_ Heartbeat history up until the split.
This allows me to build versions of the crm from before the split
(handy if you're doing "hg bisect" to track down which changeset broke
something).
Oh yeah ,, that's the same thing I think I suggested. Maybe I didn't
express myself properly but I want the full history for the sub project
but not of unrelated stuff.
So dlm.git will have the full dlm history up to HEAD/master. but it will
not have cman history inside.
cluster.git will instead retain full history of everything up to the
split.
Fabio
--
I'm going to make him an offer he can't refuse.
_______________________________________________
Pacemaker mailing list
Pacemaker@clusterlabs.org
http://list.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
