On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 7:36:22 PM UTC-5, 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 > Labs repositories are designed to be the place you get the latest > software from Puppet Labs. This was a conscious choice. > > > > > Could you please file an issue (with impact data) about the > > distribution name issue. I believe we considered doing what you > > 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. >
I am not directly affected by this issue, but I agree with those complaining that it was unwise, or at least inhospitable for PL to release Puppet 3 into its repositories in this way, especially considering that PL intends to continue with maintenance releases in the 2.7 series. It is tantamount to a recommendation for all users to upgrade to the new line immediately, and considering the number of breaking changes, I cannot believe that that was intended. The customary way to handle dual lines of packages is to give one line a different name, for example "puppet3-*" instead of plain "puppet-*". Failing that, it is essential that the package name for the 2.7 series be changed, else the PL repository will be near-useless to people who want to stay at 2.7 for the time being. If that's the plan then the first "puppet2-*" packages should have been released at the same time that the mainline packages were updated to v 3.0. Alternatively, PL could set up a separate repository for the Puppet 2 maintenance releases. Distinguishing the lines only by their version numbers simply isn't useful, and dropping v3 packages with their breaking changes into the same repository with v2 *will* cause breakage for users. PL, I urge you to reconsider. Soon. John -- 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/-/AG4SVCmBV1cJ. 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.
