On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Jacob Helwig <ja...@puppetlabs.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 18:42:54 -0700, Nigel Kersten wrote: > > > > https://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/7697 > > > > One problem people producing modules that make use of stages are hitting > is > > that it's difficult to create something reusable that integrates > seamlessly > > into existing setups. > > > > This feature request is to add several more implicit stages to Puppet so > we > > have: > > > > bootstrap > > pre > > main > > post > > > > existing by default, making it easier for authors to specify stages in > their > > modules. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > The answer to question "Which comes first, 'bootstrap' or 'pre'?" seems > awfully ambiguous from just the names. > Agreed. I'd like a clearer distinction. > What's the reason for separating it out? We have a default stage when the stage is undefined. [main] You need a stage before this to do things like lay down normal package repositories [pre] You need a stage before this to set up required libraries/binaries for providers to lay down repositories. [bootstrap] You could have pre,main,post only if the default stage were 'post', but that feels counter-intuitive. -- 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 puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
