On 30/07/2013, at 4:21 PM, Ulrich Windl <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> David Vossel <[email protected]> schrieb am 30.07.2013 um 01:20 in >>>> Nachricht > <[email protected]>: > > [...] >>> How does this compare to the Red Hat fence/resource-agent packages? I'm >>> very happy to see "heartbeat" and it's inherent confusion go away, so I >>> am fundamentally for this. I only question "core" and how it will relate >>> to those fence and resource agents. >> >> "core" would only be related to the ocf standard. I don't think this should >> have any relation to the fence agents. > [...] > > I wonder: "ocf:base:..." or "ocf:standard:..." instaed of "ocf:core:..." > > My personal associations are a bit like this: > core == essential > base == basic functions many are not basic > standard == somewhat standardized nor are they a standard (although they do conform to one)... they're just the ones that the people upstream ships. I like this one the least. "common" perhaps? I don't much care beyond saying that continuing to call them "heartbeat" is a continuing source of confusion to people just arriving to our set of projects. Calling them "heartbeat" made sense originally, but now its an historical anachronism. IMHO. > > Regards, > Ulrich > > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-HA mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha > See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
