On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 15:57 -0600, David Teigland wrote: > On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:11:00PM +0100, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > > 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. > > I wouldn't mind either of those combinations. Maybe rgmanager's last > stand will be in cluster.git anyway... if so, then it's not a factor. > > I didn't have much reason for separating fence/fence-agents. We're > planning on unifying it all anyway, even if the agents are done sooner. > And I don't think packaging/releasing agents separately should have much > bearing on the source tree? (I've heard interest in putting agents in > their own package for Fedora.) > > Dave >
There is actually an important difference for me to keep them separated. Each time we do a package update, the whole set of daemons will need to go through testing again, even if they didn't change a bit. If we release the 2 components together, users will get both updates at the same time. Unless you are a super paranoid sysadmin, a yum update or apt-get update will pull both fenced and fence-agents packages together (since they come from the same source). Updating a daemon requires a restart of one bit or another. Updating the agents no. I believe that in the long run, and for our users, there is enough time to save in testing/sysadmin tasks that's worth our initial effort in bootstrapping them into 2 trees. Fabio _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@clusterlabs.org http://list.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
