On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 22:11 +0100, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > 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.
Since you don't care, we should split them. agents are generally updated at a much higher ratio than daemons. Fabio _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@clusterlabs.org http://list.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
