On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Digimer <lists@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 05/27/2012 08:51 PM, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Digimer <lists@xxxxxxxxxx> 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. :) >>> >> >> I think the only thing you missed was proposing a meta-project to rule >> them all :-) > > Let me dig around for that ring, I know it's somewhere... > > Joking aside though; All the different lists and channels made sense > when there were different stacks and independent components. This is not > really the case anymore though, and will become all the more less so in > the future. For now. There is no reason to think that no-one will ever write a better X than Y. > > I often worry when I suggest someone go somewhere for help that the > right person who *could* have helped them is not in the given channel or > list. I think it would benefit the community to have one channel and one > list. I don't care about the distinctions as much as I used to. But I think we're generally pretty good at suggesting alternate lists/rooms if the known topic expert hangs out somewhere else. -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
