On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 1:36:22 AM UTC+1, Michael Stanhke wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Jeff McCune > <je...@puppetlabs.com<javascript:>> > wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Robert Rothenberg > > <rob...@gmail.com<javascript:>> > wrote: > >> I am using CentOS 6 with the PuppetLabs yum repo from > >> http://yum.puppetlabs.com > >> > >> I noticed that today version 3 is available on the repo, so of course, > an > >> upgrade to Puppet is available. > > > > Yes, this major version update went live on Monday. There are a > > number of breaking-changes between 2.7 and 3.0 which are described at: > > http://links.puppetlabs.com/telly_breaking_changes > > > >> Ideally, it would have been better if v3 had a different distribution > name, > >> so that systems with v2.7.x are not upgraded (especially if there will > be > >> future releases if v2.7). > > We sent out several notices about this prior to doing it. The Puppet >
Not everyone subscribes to notices or reads the mailing lists regularly. > Labs repositories are designed to be the place you get the latest > software from Puppet Labs. This was a conscious choice. > Yes. And users would expect to receive things like security updates and bug fixes fairly quickly. But a major upgrade than can break existing infrastructure should not have the same distribution name. It means that users who aren't ready to upgrade cannot use yum--- they will have to manually install updates to 2.7 because there will always be a newer v3 (unless you decide to create a separate distribution name for puppet 2.7, so that users can track that instead). I maintain a network that uses a non-standard Puppet installation (where manifests are distributed using git hooks instead of using a Puppet master). So my concerns about a major upgrade are that much greater. I should add that I work for a small company that chose Puppet because we don't want to use large amounts of our time with system administration. So releasing a major upgrade in this manner negates that reason. > > > Could you please file an issue (with impact data) about the > > distribution name issue. I believe we considered doing what you > Under what project should the issue be filed? > > describe, but decided against it. I don't know the reasons off the > > top of my head though, an issue will give us a clear place to track > > the request, the impact it has on you and your organization, and the > > decision we come to (or have already come to). > > > >> I am concerned about things breaking. So is there a document detailing > >> incompatibilities? Will there be future 2.7 releases? > > There will be. I'd imagine you'll see activity slow on it though. > > > > > > There will be future releases of 2.7. We will continue to fix bugs in > > the 2.7 series, but we are intending to avoid adding any new features > > or make any large changes to the behavior of Puppet 2.7. > > > > Hope this helps, > > -Jeff > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Puppet Users" group. > > To post to this group, send email to > > puppet...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > puppet-users...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/XKCXN15MfqMJ. 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.
