On 12/24/2010 08:37 PM, Patrick wrote: > > On Dec 24, 2010, at 6:41 AM, Daniel Piddock wrote: > >> Unfortunately it looks like puppeteers expect this unusual name resolution >> order, if they ever knowingly stumble upon it (e.g. 4483, 4472). Either I >> need to hack around this problem carefully or wait a long time for the next >> major release, if puppetlabs decide to follow the OO programming crowd. > > Judging from what I've, since this is a breaking change, I would guess that > you are right since Puppet almost never includes breaking changes in a minor > release. I'm guessing the very best you can hope for in a minor release is a > warning when you do this. > > Also, I can see it both ways, but to me, the way it's working makes the most > sense. >
I second this sentiment. Myself, I cannot see why you wouldn't "include kerberos::kerberos" if you want to make sure to hit the right class (instead of the wrongly assumed <current-module>::kerberos). Regards, Felix -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-us...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
