[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Cluster-devel] STABLE2 cluster branch



On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 02:52:05PM -0700, Steven Dake wrote:
> This is reasonable but requires having quite a bit of conditional
> compilation in cman and other tools.  I don't know if anyone is working
> on this, but I'd imagine maintenance of such a scheme would be
> complicated since the trunk of whitetank is about to rev into tigh speed
> modification requiring different dependencies of the gfs userland.
>
> If we are to say this conditional compilation "only works with trunk of
> openais up to a certain point such as version 0.84" then that certain
> point becomes a "branch point" which I really do not want.  What I
> prefer is that trunk of gfs userland be munged to work with the new
> corosync dependency and once that has all stabilized create a new branch
> of userland to work with the corosync 1.0 infrastructure.  The complete
> software suite then would be "stable3" + "corosync 1.X" + "trunk of
> openais ais services" for the checkpoint service.

So it sounds like the next stable release of openais will be in the new
form of corosync + openais?  Will Fedora 9 have whitetank or the new
corosync+openais release?

We definately need to do a release or two of cluster-2.y.z from STABLE2
based on openais whitetank.  Then, once a stable release of
corosync+openais exists, I see sense in either:

1. switching STABLE2 from whitetank to the corosync+openais release
2. supporting both whitetank and corosync in STABLE2 somehow, perhaps
   dropping whitetank support after a while

1 would make most sense if F9 has corosync, 2 would make most sense if F9
has whitetank.

Dave


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]