On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 1:00:14 PM UTC-6, Jeff McCune wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:27 AM, John Bollinger <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> Additionally, avoiding hardcoded paths and avoiding the assumption that >> Puppet has a private Ruby to play around in will be helpful (and wise in >> any case). >> > > If the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior then our > components will make assumptions about hardcoded paths and the location of > specific dependencies like Ruby, Java, etc... I don't think it's possible > to avoid this outcome given the number of people and teams working on the > various projects and the desire to reduce the complexity of the system. > >
I don't accept that it's impossible, but I would believe that it would require effort, resources, and discipline that PL is unwilling to invest. I think you are making a poor decision, at least from a design perspective, but it's your call to make. > Do you have a sense of how much impact this will be on you John? > If I cannot install Puppet into a Ruby installation of my choice (of sufficiently recent version) and have it work correctly, or if its installation alters the behavior of other software relying on that Ruby, then I do not foresee updating until I or someone else can fix those problems. I am unlikely to be able to devote any effort to such an endeavor any time soon, so my adoption of the new version would be forestalled indefinitely. John -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-dev/eaf0b122-ae6e-47e5-b75f-b17c8a71bb33%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
