Hi!
I just hit "reply" (not checking the headers after that). Maybe It's a problem of your reply ot he mailing list.
I found these relevant headers in your message:
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 21:15:43 +0200
From: Florian Haas <florian.haas@linbit.com>
Organization: LINBIT
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
rv:1.8.1.22) Gecko/20090608 Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/2.0.0.22
Mnenhy/0.7.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ha-wg-technical@lists.linux-foundation.org
References: <4E14A08C020000A100006704@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <4E14A08C020000A100006704@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de>
Sender: ha-wg-technical-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
Errors-To: ha-wg-technical-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
In absense of a CC: or Reply-To:, human responses will go to the From: address and not to the Sender:
So possibly my MUA did the correct thing. From RFC 2822, section 3.6.2:
"The originator fields also provide the information required when
replying to a message. When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it
indicates the mailbox(es) to which the author of the message suggests
that replies be sent. In the absence of the "Reply-To:" field,
replies SHOULD by default be sent to the mailbox(es) specified in the
"From:" field unless otherwise specified by the person composing the
reply."
Regards,
Ulrich
>>> Florian Haas <florian.haas@linbit.com> schrieb am 07.07.2011 um 08:35 in
Nachricht <4E1553C0.5070300@linbit.com>:
> Morning,
>
> any specific reason for not replying on list? I generally prefer to keep
> such discussions public, that way everyone interested can weigh in and
> benefit from the outcome.
>
> Cheers,
> Florian
>
> On 07/07/2011 08:11 AM, Ulrich Windl wrote:
>>>>> Florian Haas <florian.haas@linbit.com> schrieb am 06.07.2011 um 21:15 in
> > Nachricht <4E14B45F.8020902@linbit.com>:
> >> On 07/06/2011 05:51 PM, Ulrich Windl wrote:
> > [...unrelated...]
> >> Now, I trust you have read the OCF RA Developer's Guide and followed the
> >> best practices outlined there. I must conclude from your frustration
> >> that the Guide is inadequate. So as the author of said guide, I would
> >> ask you to suggest improvements in any way you deem appropriate. Your
> >> feedback is much appreciated.
> >
> > Could you send me the current version of your guide as one file, either as
> PDF or HTML? The it would be easier to comment on it. Here where I can mail,
> I cannot access Internet (we don't need to discuss, just believe it).
> >
> > [...ocf-tester...]
> >> So like you are saying yourself, there was application misbehavior
> >> involved. I'm afraid I am not following what your conclusion from this
> >> is in relation to the OCF spec, your resource agent, or ocf-tester. Can
> >> you elaborate please?
> >
> > I pointed out that ocf-tester has some potential for improvement, like
> calling the RA with additional debugging, or call specific methods manually
> to have a chance to inspect the results. I might try to patch it if I find
> the time.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ulrich
> >
> >
>
_______________________________________________
ha-wg-technical mailing list
ha-wg-technical@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ha-wg-technical
I just hit "reply" (not checking the headers after that). Maybe It's a problem of your reply ot he mailing list.
I found these relevant headers in your message:
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 21:15:43 +0200
From: Florian Haas <florian.haas@linbit.com>
Organization: LINBIT
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
rv:1.8.1.22) Gecko/20090608 Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/2.0.0.22
Mnenhy/0.7.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ha-wg-technical@lists.linux-foundation.org
References: <4E14A08C020000A100006704@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <4E14A08C020000A100006704@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de>
Sender: ha-wg-technical-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
Errors-To: ha-wg-technical-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
In absense of a CC: or Reply-To:, human responses will go to the From: address and not to the Sender:
So possibly my MUA did the correct thing. From RFC 2822, section 3.6.2:
"The originator fields also provide the information required when
replying to a message. When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it
indicates the mailbox(es) to which the author of the message suggests
that replies be sent. In the absence of the "Reply-To:" field,
replies SHOULD by default be sent to the mailbox(es) specified in the
"From:" field unless otherwise specified by the person composing the
reply."
Regards,
Ulrich
>>> Florian Haas <florian.haas@linbit.com> schrieb am 07.07.2011 um 08:35 in
Nachricht <4E1553C0.5070300@linbit.com>:
> Morning,
>
> any specific reason for not replying on list? I generally prefer to keep
> such discussions public, that way everyone interested can weigh in and
> benefit from the outcome.
>
> Cheers,
> Florian
>
> On 07/07/2011 08:11 AM, Ulrich Windl wrote:
>>>>> Florian Haas <florian.haas@linbit.com> schrieb am 06.07.2011 um 21:15 in
> > Nachricht <4E14B45F.8020902@linbit.com>:
> >> On 07/06/2011 05:51 PM, Ulrich Windl wrote:
> > [...unrelated...]
> >> Now, I trust you have read the OCF RA Developer's Guide and followed the
> >> best practices outlined there. I must conclude from your frustration
> >> that the Guide is inadequate. So as the author of said guide, I would
> >> ask you to suggest improvements in any way you deem appropriate. Your
> >> feedback is much appreciated.
> >
> > Could you send me the current version of your guide as one file, either as
> PDF or HTML? The it would be easier to comment on it. Here where I can mail,
> I cannot access Internet (we don't need to discuss, just believe it).
> >
> > [...ocf-tester...]
> >> So like you are saying yourself, there was application misbehavior
> >> involved. I'm afraid I am not following what your conclusion from this
> >> is in relation to the OCF spec, your resource agent, or ocf-tester. Can
> >> you elaborate please?
> >
> > I pointed out that ocf-tester has some potential for improvement, like
> calling the RA with additional debugging, or call specific methods manually
> to have a chance to inspect the results. I might try to patch it if I find
> the time.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ulrich
> >
> >
>
_______________________________________________
ha-wg-technical mailing list
ha-wg-technical@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ha-wg-technical
