On 31/05/18 14:48 +0200, Jan Pokorný wrote: > I am soliciting feedback on these CIB features related questions, > please reply (preferably on-list so we have the shared collective > knowledge) if at least one of the questions is answered positively > in your case (just tick the respective "[ ]" boxes as "[x]").
I am not sure how to interpret no feedback so far -- does it mean that those features are indeed used only very sparsely, or is the questionnaire not as welcoming as it could be? This is definitely not the last time the userbase's feedback is of help, so the more pleasant we can do such enquiries, the better turnaround, I guess. > Any other commentary also welcome -- thank you in advance. > > 1. [ ] Do you edit CIB by hand (as opposed to relying on crm/pcs or > their UI counterparts)? Putting seriousness aside for a bit, there's a relevant anecdotical reference directly from pacemaker's own codebase: https://github.com/ClusterLabs/pacemaker/blob/Pacemaker-2.0.0-rc5/Makefile.common#L54 :-) As Ken noted, crm shell may support all of 2. + 3. + 4., it was just my extension that those could be especially handy with direct XML-level control, as shifting towards more abstract thinking about the configuration may actually conflict with the goal of straightforward conceptual comprehension, at least in case of 3. > 2. [ ] Do you use "template" based syntactic simplification[1] in CIB? > > 3. [ ] Do you use "id-ref" based syntactic simplification[2] in CIB? > > 3.1 [ ] When positive about 3., would you mind much if "id-refs" got > unfold/exploded during the "cibadmin --upgrade --force" > equivalent as a reliability/safety precaution? This was a premature worst-case conclusion on my end (generally, I think it's better to start pessimistically only to be pleased later on, rather than vice-versa). In fact, there's nothing that would prevent reversibility of temporary limited-scope "id-refs" exploding, in an unfold-upgrade-refold manner, sorry for the noise (https://github.com/ClusterLabs/pacemaker/pull/1500). However, you can take this also as discussion-worth probe into how mere _syntactic_ changes not affecting the behaviour (i.e. the semantics encoded with either syntactic expressions) whatsoever would be perceived. In this now merely theoretic case, parts of information that only have bearing on user's comprehension would be lost (multiple duplicate entities as opposed to shared single point of control) and the question hence is: How much frustration could arise from such semantics-preserving interventions inflicted with schema upgrades or elsewhere? Is this something we should avoid at all costs so as not to alienate not even a single user, or is there some extent of tolerance as long as you can hardly tell a difference in higher-level tools? > 4. [ ] Do you use "tag" based syntactic grouping[3] in CIB? The original questions are still valid, feel free to respond to them or to the new bunch at your convenience. It will help to shape future directions for pacemaker. -- Jan (Poki)
pgpJbth36Z1Tt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list: [email protected] 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
