[ClusterLabs Developers] Consensus on to-avoid in pacemaker, unnecessary proliferation of redundant goal-achievers, undocumented options and such? (Was: maintenance vs is-managed; different levels of the maintenance property)

[Jan Pokorný]

On 18/12/19 02:36 +0100, Jan Pokorný wrote:
> [...]
> 
> - based on the above, increase of redundance/burden, plus
>   maintenance costs not just at pacemaker itself (more complex
>   codebase) but also any external tooling incl. higher level tools
>   (ditto, plus ensuring the change is caught by these at all[*]),
>   confusion on combinability, etc.
> 
> [...]
> 
> [*] for instance, I missed that change when suggesting the equivalent
>     to pcs team: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303969
>     but hey, they made do avoiding that configuration addition
>     altogether :-)

Oh, may be caused with this "maintenance" resource meta-attribute not
being documented at all in 1.1 line (while it was introduced in 1.1.12
and now we are at 1.1.22):
https://clusterlabs.org/pacemaker/doc/en-US/Pacemaker/1.1/html-single/Pacemaker_Explained/index.html#_resource_meta_attributes

Again, something we shall rather prevent (undocumented options, not
even in some "experimental" section that would list provisions that
may be changed or disappear again for things in need of some gradual,
multi-release incubation).

Can we agree on some principles likes this?

-- 
Jan (Poki)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/developers/attachments/20191218/bcc5832d/attachment-0002.sig>