On Aug 28, 2013, at 12:38 PM, Andy Parker <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Luke Kanies <[email protected]> wrote: > On Aug 28, 2013, at 8:45 AM, Andy Parker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > * #8040 - anchor pattern. I think a solution is in sight, but it didn't > > make 3.3.0 and it is looking like it might be backwards incompatible. > > Why would it be incompatible? > > That implies that we can't ship it until 4.0, which would be a tragedy > worth fighting hard to avoid. > > > The only possible problem, that I know of, would be that it would change the > evaluation order. Once things get contained correctly that might cause > problems. We never give very strong guarantees between versions of puppet, > but given the concern with manifest order, I thought that I would call this > out as well. Do you mean, for 2 classes that should have a relationship but currently don't because of the bug (and the lack of someone using an anchor pattern to work around the bug), fixing that bug would cause them to have a relationship and thus change the order? That is, you're concerned that the bug has been around so long it's considered a feature, and thus we can't change it except in a major release? -- Luke Kanies | http://about.me/lak | http://puppetlabs.com/ | +1-615-594-8199 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
