[Pacemaker] Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [Cluster-devel] [RFC] Splitting cluster.git into separate projects/trees

Fabio M. Di Nitto fdinitto at redhat.com
Mon Nov 17 00:46:43 EST 2008

On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 22:11 +0100, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 18:37, Joel Becker <Joel.Becker at oracle.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:25:30AM -0600, David Teigland wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:18:13AM +0100, Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote:
> >> > At this point we haven't really settled how many (sub) project will be
> >> > created out of this split. This will come once we agree how to split.
> >>
> >> I like the third option as long as the number of new git trees doesn't
> >> explode (obviously no one wants 10 new git trees.)  Not to get ahead of
> >> you, but for my own curiosity I looked at what minimum number of git trees
> >> I'd have to start juggling... it's not too bad, but more than this might
> >> get out of hand.
> >
> >        Obviously I like the third option, as I proposed it :-)  But I
> > think Dave's really nailed how to split it out.  Originally, I expected
> > that his fence.git, fence-agents.git, cman.git, and rgmanager.git would
> > stay together as one tree, and that gfs and its utilities would also be
> > one tree.
> I'd have thought fence.git and fence-agents.git in one and cman.git
> and rgmanager.git in another.
> But I may be missing some of the interdependencies.
> > Looking at it, though, I think he's right we split them out.
> > That's a result from our plan at the summit to start converging fence
> > agents and then eventually move fencing up the stack.
> I think we can do that and have them stay together - for instance
> we're thinking of putting the resource agents and the lrmd which
> drives them together in a repo - but I don't care that much either
> way.

Since you don't care, we should split them. agents are generally updated
at a much higher ratio than daemons.


More information about the Pacemaker mailing list