[ClusterLabs Developers] New LVM resource agent name (currently LVM-activate)

[Oyvind Albrigtsen]

On 23/11/17 09:54 +0100, Kristoffer Grönlund wrote:
>Eric Ren <zren at suse.com> writes:
>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>>> lvm2:
>>> Good - It's obvious it's a newer/better version of the lvm agent.
>>> Bad - It may be associated with the lvm2 commands which we are working
>>> on phasing out.
>>
>> At first, I thought LVM2 seems good because users probably get an idea
>> that it's a new version,
>> something to replace the existing LVM, like IPaddr2 to IPaddr, it's not
>> something co-existing/co-working
>> with LVM. But, some users may relate the version number ("2") with LVM2
>> project itself.
>>
>>> Does anyone else have any other ideas for names or preferences? (Or
>>> reasons to keep the current LVM-activate name?).
>>
>> As David said, LVM-activate can express its whole meaning - just to
>> manage activation of logical volumes.
>> Well, I don't know, it's hard to choose :-/
>>
>> Anyway, it's good idea to announce this new RAs and lvmlockd/systemid
>> features in clusterlab user ML at some point.
>>
>> I've asked our QA to schedule a testing on the RAs soon, and I also find
>> some potential improvements to do
>> in my next pull request. Plus to the naming issue, I would appreciate
>> any testing/pull-request for this RAs :)
>
>I am getting the feeling that the best thing to do would be to combine
>the two agents. It sounds like the main thing added by LVM-activate is
>the two new modes, which could be added to the existing agent?
>Especially now that the activation modes are more or less plugins to the
>old agent.
I was hoping to not do an upstream release where it gets added and
then renamed/removed later on.
>
>LVM vs. LVM2 is confusing enough on its own, if there's an actual lvm2
>project that just makes it even worse... IPaddr and IPaddr2 is a
>situation we don't want to repeat. :/
Maybe lvm-ng might be a good name, to signify that it's got additional
features compared to the other LVM RA.
>
>Even if it means some extra work, I suspect it will be worth it in the
>end to combine them.
>
>Cheers,
>Kristoffer
>
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Eric
>
>-- 
>// Kristoffer Grönlund
>// kgronlund at suse.com