Forum: CFEngine Help
Subject: Re: (addendum) How easy/simple is cfengine?
Author: davidlee
Link to topic: https://cfengine.com/forum/read.php?3,24353,24386#msg-24386
Whilst I think there is major benefit in having some sort of repository or
library, there is an associated danger.
It needs quality control.
COPBL itself illustrates this. While this is useful (I use it myself), not only
is there a complete lack of naming conventions, it also has cases where things
are poor (lacking relatively easy generalisation, etc.), incomplete ("cronjob",
in several respects) or inconsistent (for example the specifications of
"field_edits" and "insert_lines" in "set_variable_values").
This proposed repository, whose aim is general-purpose use, really ought to
have some system of structure and conventions, coupled with peer-reviewed
quality control. It is (I presume) aimed at a wide range of diverse sites, so
shouldn't be a "this quick-fix worked for me" but rather "here's a generally
useful, flexible utility". (If I write in a Linux environment, what happens
when a Solaris shop uses it?)
And what about maintenance? Once something is in there, then ongoing
maintenance requires not only effort, but also care: a change to an item
carries significant associated risk of breaking behaviour at sites that use it.
(So how are proposed changes centrally assessed and regression-tested? What
advice is given to end-user sites about upgrades from the repo? What support
is offered and by whom? Etc.)
_______________________________________________
Help-cfengine mailing list
[email protected]
https://cfengine.org/mailman/listinfo/help-cfengine
