On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 13:05, Fabio M. Di Nitto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Actually its the opposite :-) > 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. Thats basically what I did for the GUI. Which is fine, it just means you wont be able to build pre-split versions of the dlm from within dlm.git > > 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 > _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@clusterlabs.org http://list.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
