On Jun 15, 2012, at 3:13 PM, jcbollinger wrote: > You seem to be interpreting many of the responses as assertions that you > shouldn't want what you're asking for. I don't think anyone is saying that, > at least not at the level of generality at which you responded to David. On > the other hand, several people, myself included, have expressed valid > concerns about the specific way you suggest enabling your desired behavior. > I cannot speak for the other participants, but so far you have not addressed > those concerns to my satisfaction.
I just went back and re-read every complaint, and they can all be summed up in 1. Too much complexity for too little gain (both of which are very subjective) 2. You shouldn't use puppet for that. The second one requires replacing puppet with a configuration management system which can do the job, so it's an odd thing for everyone to suggest. There hasn't been a single comment about the technical merits of this change - even from yourself. It's also funny that everyone says "this should be a major version number change" without considering that this is exactly what I am asking, since we are on the verge of a major version number upgrade. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects. -- 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.
