On Sep 27, 2013, at 2:31 PM, John Bollinger <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Thursday, September 26, 2013 2:39:19 PM UTC-5, Luke Kanies wrote: > Do we have agreement that it's a good idea to find a way to encourage users > to provide more dependencies, and that it would be good if we could somehow > detect when a dependency is likely to be missing? > > > > I think it's a perfectly fine idea to encourage users to provide all needed > dependencies, and moreso if Puppet can help users figure out what those may > be. I accept the premise that most users miss dependencies required to > ensure a valid order of application (even though their catalogs may be > applied successfully anyway), therefore I agree that it would be a good idea > to encourage them to provide more dependencies -- as long as the ones they > are encouraged to provide are in fact likely to be needed. I just don't > accept simple lack of containment as an adequate criterion for identifying > missing dependencies. I definitely agree it wouldn't catch all; I am hoping it would give us one category of dependency we could start making recommendations on. As you note, though, I don't have actual data suggesting this would make it materially better. > If we can agree on that, then maybe we can find a mechanism (which may or may > not involve containment) we can agree on. If we can't agree on that, then > yeah, we're not going to agree. :) > > > I'm willing to give it a try. It's a start. :) -- http://puppetlabs.com/ | http://about.me/lak | @puppetmasterd -- 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.
