[Pacemaker] Resource capacity limit

[Andrew Beekhof]

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb at suse.de> wrote:
> On 2009-11-05T14:45:36, Andrew Beekhof <andrew at beekhof.net> wrote:
>
>> Lastly, I would really like to defer this for 1.2
>> I know I've bent the rules a bit for 1.0 in the past, but its really
>> late in the game now.
>
> Personally, I think the Linux kernel model works really well. ie, no
> "major releases" any more, but bugfixes and features alike get merged
> over time and constantly.

Thats a great model if you've got hoards of developers and testers.
Of which we have neither.

At this point in time, I can't see us going back to the way heartbeat
releases were done.
If there was a single thing that I'd credit Pacemaker's current
reliability to, it would be our release strategy.

>
> With increasing coverage of the regression tests, the existing
> functionality is protected; which is really the important bit. This
> encourages a smooth forward transition.

One simply can't test everything.

> There's a point in having a devel tree (similar to linux-next) before
> merging back major features into the trunk, but I don't really subscribe
> to the major version flow. That just means that there's a lot of testing
> that needs to happen at once, which means more things slip through than
> with incremental testing. In my experience, major updates make them a
> royal PITA for users.

Noted. But for now, I don't think we'll go in that direction.