On Nov 13, 2008, at 11:53 AM, RijilV wrote: > 2008/11/13 Luke Kanies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Nov 12, 2008, at 4:51 PM, joe wrote: > > > > > That makes sense, though I would think if you have recurse => true > and > > a subscribe/notify, then checksumming should be enabled by default > in > > that scenario also. It may not be feasible depending on the > internal > > workings of puppet, but that would seem to be the expected behavior. > > I guess I'm of two minds, but this doesn't really come up very often > -- most people don't seem to want to do recursive checking without > having a remote source. > > Anyone else have an opinion? > > > I'd rather not checksum recursively without explicitly stating to do > so.
*whew* :) -- Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it. -- P. J. O'Rourke --------------------------------------------------------------------- Luke Kanies | http://reductivelabs.com | http://madstop.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
