[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 03:41 PM, Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote:
> 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.
> 
> Fabio

Well then, I will un-abandon my position to not proceed.

I understand the name 'ha-wg', but I think it's not enough related to
clustering for people to easily connect it. I like that it focuses on
HA, rather than "clustering" which is an umbrella for both HA and HPC. I
like the word "cluster", as it's one of the primary terms users would
use to search, I would think.

If we must create a new, general purpose name (though I still argue for
"linux-cluster", politics aside), then we should take the opportunity to
choose a name that is user-friendly, easy to connect to open source
cluster.

This should also be encouraged to be a user-focused list, to help keep
the snr low for devs using their per-project lists, I would suggest.

How would something like:

* Open Clustering
* Open HA Cluster
* Other?

-- 
Digimer
Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.com


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