On 11/04/18 11:03 -0500, Ken Gaillot wrote: > On Wed, 2018-04-11 at 08:49 +0200, Ulrich Windl wrote: >>>>> Ken Gaillot <kgail...@redhat.com> schrieb am 09.04.2018 um >>>>> 19:10 in Nachricht >>> I had planned to use the "pcmk-" prefix, but I kept thinking about >>> the goal of making things more intuitive for novice users, and a >>> novice user's first instinct will be to search the logs for >>> "pacemaker". Most of the names stay under the convenient >>> 15-character limit anyway. >> >> If the user searches logs before reading the docs, the user has a >> more severe problem IMHO. > > Even after reading docs, when someone starts troubleshooting a problem, > they're going to look at the logs (which may be grepping a file, > running journalctl, typing a string into a log collector's search bar, > etc.). Anyone's first instinct will be to search for the name of the > program. People will learn to adapt to whatever we pick if they use it > often enough, but the goal of this rename is to make things intuitive > enough that people don't need to remember bits of pacemaker trivia (and > the person filling in for the person who normally maintains the cluster > while they're on vacation doesn't pull their hair out).
Another perspective is this: advent of machine learning and similar advancements means that shift towards structured logging is unrefutable (why to lose energy on human-friendly data serialization only to be turned back to something edible by machines to feed their inference rules/analytical perspective -- even if it's just a user's script, accessing some fields directly will make one's life easier). Long-term embracing that seems more viable to me than micro-optimizing with a full prefix, just in case short prefix will not be familiar (there was none such thus far). > The other advantage of full "pacemaker" is that we can keep the name > of the master process (pacemakerd) the same. That seems to be a strong > preference. Otherwise pcmk-initd would be the likely choice for that. (far less opinionated than in cib case, could also be pcmk-masterd or something to that effect to honor original sense of "master control process"; oh I hear, what a blasphemy now with promotable clones, but historical init systems just accepted the children passed away, this is rather sort of local-only-HA supervisor of the cluster-resource-HA constituents, perhaps raising on importance if the count of supervised processes will grow as sketched recently in two contexts in this thread) > I'm still leaning to "pacemaker-", but if there's a strong sentiment > for "pcmk-", there's still time to switch (though not much, I'm working > on this now and hope to have rc3 out next week). With "pcmk-" prefix, there would be just one more thing to solve: what should "pcmk" executable do (so as to occupy the namespace fully). It could serve as an old name -> new name translator and, without parameters, provide the same info as "pacemakerd -F", with switches reserved for future use :-) 1 Kč -- Poki
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org