[ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: Possible idea for 2.0.0: renaming the Pacemaker daemons

[Ken Gaillot]

On Wed, 2018-04-11 at 08:49 +0200, Ulrich Windl wrote:
> > > > Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com> schrieb am 09.04.2018 um
> > > > 19:10 in Nachricht
> 
> <1523293841.5734.7.camel at redhat.com>:
> > Based on the list discussion and feedback I could coax out of
> > others, I
> > will change the Pacemaker daemon names, including the log tags, for
> > 2.0.0-rc3.
> > 
> > I will add symlinks for the old names, to allow
> > help/version/metadata
> > calls in user scripts and higher-level tools to continue working
> > during
> > a transitional time. (Even if we update all known tools, we need to
> > keep compatibility with existing versions for a good while.)
> > 
> > I won't change the systemd unit file names or API library names,
> > since
> > they aren't one-to-one with the daemons, and will have a bigger
> > impact
> > on client apps.
> > 
> > Here's my current plan:
> > 
> > Old name          New name
> > --------          --------
> > pacemakerd        pacemakerd
> > attrd             pacemaker-attrd
> > cib               pacemaker-confd
> > crmd              pacemaker-controld
> > lrmd              pacemaker-execd
> > pengine           pacemaker-schedulerd
> > stonithd          pacemaker-fenced
> > pacemaker_remoted pacemaker-remoted
> 
> I think the common "pacemaker-" prefix is too long. "pcmkr-" instead?

If we're going to shorten it, I'd go with "pcmk-", since that is
already in use in multiple places (PCMK_* environment variables, pcmk_*
fence device parameters, some API function names).

> [...]
> > 
> > I had planned to use the "pcmk-" prefix, but I kept thinking about
> > the
> > goal of making things more intuitive for novice users, and a novice
> > user's first instinct will be to search the logs for "pacemaker".
> > Most
> > of the names stay under the convenient 15-character limit anyway.
> 
> If the user searches logs before reading the docs, the user has a
> more severe problem IMHO.

Even after reading docs, when someone starts troubleshooting a problem,
they're going to look at the logs (which may be grepping a file,
running journalctl, typing a string into a log collector's search bar,
etc.). Anyone's first instinct will be to search for the name of the
program. People will learn to adapt to whatever we pick if they use it
often enough, but the goal of this rename is to make things intuitive
enough that people don't need to remember bits of pacemaker trivia (and
the person filling in for the person who normally maintains the cluster
while they're on vacation doesn't pull their hair out).

The other advantage of full "pacemaker" is that we can keep the name of
the master process (pacemakerd) the same. That seems to be a strong
preference. Otherwise pcmk-initd would be the likely choice for that.

I'm still leaning to "pacemaker-", but if there's a strong sentiment
for "pcmk-", there's still time to switch (though not much, I'm working
on this now and hope to have rc3 out next week).

> 
> [...]
> 
> Regards,
> Ulrich
-- 
Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com>