On 2013-06-25T10:16:58, Andrey Groshev <gre...@yandex.ru> wrote:
> Ok, I recently became engaged in the PСMK, so for me it is a surprize.
> The more so in all the major linux distributions version 1.1.х.
Pacemaker has very strong regression and system tests, and barring
accidents, it is usually very safe to always deploy the latest version -
even if it is "unstable".
Perhaps a numbering scheme like the Linux kernel would fit better than a
stable/unstable branch distinction. Changes that deserve the "unstable"
term are really really rare (and I'm sure we've all learned from them),
so it may be better to then just have a slightly longer test cycle for
these.
Regards,
Lars
--
Architect Storage/HA
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB
21284 (AG Nürnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde
_______________________________________________
Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org
http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
