[Cluster-devel] STABLE2 cluster branch

[Christine Caulfield <ccaulfie@redhat.com>]

Christine Caulfield wrote:
> Steven Dake wrote:
>> 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.
>>>


Here's a first pass at a patch to make STABLE2 work with openais trunk
and whitetank. please give it a go (or at least a look) if you can.

-- 

Chrissie
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: stable2.diff
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 4705 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/cluster-devel/attachments/20080305/3b6d75d2/attachment.bin>