[Cluster-devel] STABLE2 cluster branch

[Steven Dake <sdake@redhat.com>]

bOn Tue, 2008-03-04 at 13:39 +0000, Christine Caulfield wrote:
> 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
> 

When corosync 1.0 is released the entire ABI used to make plugins will
change as well as the recovery system.

I am not backporting or making compatibility interfaces for these
things.  So the code will have to be ifdefed to deal with this
condition, or a stable3 branch will have to be branched off trunk when
corosync is released.

Regards
-steve