I just reread your email and realized that I said "no", but my final paragraph is the real response to exactly what you asked. :)
So yes, adding the relationship can cause the order to change. On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Andy Parker <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Luke Kanies <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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? >> >> > No that shouldn't be a problem. I think we will be using making the > resource syntax for classes ( class { foo: } ) create the containment > relationship. That doesn't allow multiple declarations and so we shouldn't > encounter the problem of the class being in two places. > > >> 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? >> >> > More of just that the class will start being contained in another class > and so it will change where it is evaluated in an agent run. That could > cause something that worked before to stop working (it only worked before > because of random luck). I'm also, right now, wondering if there are > possible dependency cycles that might show up. I haven't thought that one > through. > > >> -- >> 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. >> > > > > -- > Andrew Parker > [email protected] > Freenode: zaphod42 > Twitter: @aparker42 > Software Developer > > *Join us at PuppetConf 2014, September 23-24 in San Francisco* > -- Andrew Parker [email protected] Freenode: zaphod42 Twitter: @aparker42 Software Developer *Join us at PuppetConf 2014, September 23-24 in San Francisco* -- 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.
