Re: [Engine-devel] Autorecovery feature plan for review
Hi Ayal,
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ayal Baron" <abaron(a)redhat.com>
To: "Yaniv Kaul" <ykaul(a)redhat.com>
Cc: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 12:19:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] Autorecovery feature plan for review
>
> I still fail to understand why you 'punish' existing objects and
> not
> giving them the new feature enabled by default.
This is not a feature, it's a bug!
Whatever we call it, it is a change in behavior. We agreed that it will be enabled for all
existing objects by default.
http://globalnerdy.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/bug_vs_featur...
This should not be treated as a feature and this should not be
configurable!
I can imagine some situations when I would not like the autorecovery to happen, but if
everyone agrees not to make it configurable, I will just remove it from my patchset.
Today an object moves to non-operational due to state reported by
vdsm. The object should immediately return to up the moment vdsm
reports the object as ok (this means that you don't stop monitoring
just because there is an error).
That's it. no db field and no nothing...
This pertains to storage domains, network, host status, whatever.
> Y.
>
> > b. In environment to be clean installed -we have 0 existing
> > entities -
> > after clean install all new entities in the system will be create
> > with
> > auto recoverable set to true.
> > Will this be considered a bad behavior?
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Engine-devel mailing list
> > Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org
> > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> Engine-devel mailing list
> Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
>
_______________________________________________
Engine-devel mailing list
Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel