[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 00:52:57 EST 2008

On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 15:57 -0600, David Teigland wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:11:00PM +0100, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> > 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.
> I wouldn't mind either of those combinations.  Maybe rgmanager's last
> stand will be in cluster.git anyway... if so, then it's not a factor.
> I didn't have much reason for separating fence/fence-agents.  We're
> planning on unifying it all anyway, even if the agents are done sooner.
> And I don't think packaging/releasing agents separately should have much
> bearing on the source tree?  (I've heard interest in putting agents in
> their own package for Fedora.)
> Dave

There is actually an important difference for me to keep them separated.

Each time we do a package update, the whole set of daemons will need to
go through testing again, even if they didn't change a bit.
If we release the 2 components together, users will get both updates at
the same time. Unless you are a super paranoid sysadmin, a yum update or
apt-get update will pull both fenced and fence-agents packages together
(since they come from the same source).
Updating a daemon requires a restart of one bit or another. Updating the
agents no.

I believe that in the long run, and for our users, there is enough time
to save in testing/sysadmin tasks that's worth our initial effort in
bootstrapping them into 2 trees.


More information about the Pacemaker mailing list