On 01/02/2012 05:33 AM, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote: > On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Fabio M. Di Nitto <fdinitto@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 01/02/2012 12:24 AM, Székelyi Szabolcs wrote: > >>> 3.0.12: 11-May-2010 > >>> 3.0.12.1: 27-May-2011 >>> 3.1.2: 16-Jun-2011 >>> >>> Wow, it looks like the cman guys have a strange idea on versioning... The size >>> of changelogs is also very interesting. >> >> What strange idea? The 3.0.12.x is based on the RHEL6 branch (what you >> ge tin RHEL6.x) and the 3.1.x serie is from STABLE31 branch from upstream. >> >> 3.0.12.x is a more strict bug fix only series. 3.1 gets a bit more. >> >> Mind to explain what's strange about it? > > I think Székelyi is refering to the size of 3.0.12.1 changelog and the > things that went in it. If it's a "strict bug fix only series", then > e.g. arguably these changes shouldn't be there, cause they're new > features: > > cman init: add support for "nocluster" kernel cmdline to not > start cman at boot > Cman: Add support for udpu and rdma transport > resource-agents: Add NFSv4 support > Request For Enhancement or integration bits are also bugs. corosync supports nocluster and so cman needs the same. corosync added support for udpu and rdma transports. In order for those to work, cman needs to understand them. Similar, NFSv4 support has been added, and that support needs to be reflected in resource-agents. The lack of those integration bits are bugs, we can argue that there is a thin gray line here. It's not always black and white. >From a cman perspective those are "new features" but when you look at it from a more global integration overview, the lack of those are issues. Fabio -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
