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

Re: [Cluster-devel] STABLE2 cluster branch



David Teigland wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 05:10:54PM +0100, Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote:
>>>> 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.
>> Clearly STABLE2 is running on truck and what would be corosync+openais 
>> hopefully in not too long from now.
>>
>> Does it make sense to roll back to whitetank and back in such short time? 
>> Let's keep in mind that if we push out stable releases into distro with 
>> the stable2+whitetank combo, i assume we will need to keep supporting it 
>> for a while before turning stable2 to support corosync.
>>
>> Hence my general idea of just #ifdeffing openais support in stable2 to 
>> handle both whitetank and corosync at build time (no runtime detection) 
>> and let the users/distros decide what combo they prefer.
>>
>> If you look at it:
>>
>> whitetank does not change. stable2 support will only need roll back.
>>
>> trunk changes in openais. our master follows openais trunk. Commit the 
>> diff into stable2. It's going to be just a bit painful in the very 
>> beginning but at the end it's a matter of a cherry pick or almost.
> 

It shouldn't be /toooo/ bad. The main thing that keeps cman from
compiling against whitetank is the lack of logsys. We don't need to
backport logsys to whitetank, just provide a compatibility API for it.
Given that most of that is log_printf() that's not going to be very
arduous I hope. With luck (and I haven't check this in detail) I hope it
can be isolated to the logging.[ch] files.

Chrissie


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