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

Re: [Linux-cluster] Ideas on merging #linux-ha and #linux-cluster on freenode

On 05/28/2012 04:55 PM, Digimer wrote:
> On 05/28/2012 02:42 AM, Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote:
>> On 05/28/2012 12:02 AM, Digimer wrote:
>>> I'm not sure if this has come up before, but I thought it might be worth
>>> discussing.
>>> With the cluster stacks merging, it strikes me that having two separate
>>> channels for effectively the same topic splits up folks. I know that
>>> #linux-ha technically still supports Heartbeat, but other than that, I
>>> see little difference between the two channels.
>>> I suppose a similar argument could me made for the myriad of mailing
>>> lists, too. I don't know if any of the lists really have significant
>>> enough load to cause a problem if the lists were merged. Could
>>> Linux-Cluster, Corosync and Pacemaker be merged?
>>> Thoughts?
>>> Digimer, hoping a hornets nest wasn't just opened. :)
>> So we already have the ha-wg and ha-wg-techincal mailing lists around on
>> the linux fundation servers that should serve as coordination between
>> projects (tho it appears we rarely use them).
>> We could use an IRC equivalent on freenode.. #ha-wg ? the channel is
>> free at moment.
>> I don't see single projects mailing lists or IRC channels disappearing
>> any time soon and it doesn't make sense to kill them all either.
>> Some lists will disappear in time as the projects will slowly become
>> obsoleted. The issue here is that we can't really force it. It has to be
>> a natural process. Look at cman for example. True we obsoleted it in the
>> new world, but effectively cman will not die till RHEL6 support ends in
>> several years from now.
>> Fabio
> My worry about a new list would be that it'd be just like a standard

we already have those lists in place. we just don't use them a lot.

> http://xkcd.com/927/
> If there was to be a merger, I would think that choosing an existing one
> would be best to help avoid this. "Linux-cluster" is pretty generic and
> might fit.

I generally don't like to go into "politics" but that would be the first
point of friction. linuc-cluster, while i agree it sounds neutral, it is
associated with RHCS and other people are more religious about naming
that others.

> I understand that devs working on project like having a dedicated list
> for their project of interest. For this reason, I decided not to press
> this any more.

The idea is not bad, don't get me wrong, I am not turning it down. Let's
find a neutral namespace (like ha-wg) and start directing all users of
the new stack there.

Per project mailing list needs to exist for legacy and they will slowly
fade away naturally. Some project will keep them alive for patch posting
others will do what they want.

> My focus was from a user's perspective... A common place to send users
> who are looking for help with any part of open-source clustering where
> potential helpers can be found. Given the interconnected nature of the
> cluster components, it's hard for users to know which component is
> troubling them at first.

Yup.. so far, the major players have always been crosslooking at
different mailing lists, so the problem is not that bad as it sounds,
but i still agree (as it was discussed before IIRC) a common "umbrella"
would help the final users.


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