On Saturday, July 13, 2013 2:47:36 PM UTC+2, Ashley Penney wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 6:16 AM, Alessandro Franceschi > <a...@lab42.it<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> I insist on the question since I've not had answers previously: >> Any hope the redesign of the PuppetLabs modules will consider the >> suggested standards discussed here: >> https://github.com/stdmod/puppet-modules/blob/master/Parameters_List.md >> ? >> > > I know you're finding the lack of answer from us frustrating and I can > promise we're not trying to ignore it or trivialize the issue. From our > perspective it's just the two of us and we're just trying to find our feet > and handle the enormous PR backlog and get the modules into some kind of > shape. I'm not against any of those parameter names and I'll accept PRs to > deprecate all the existing names and replace them with alternatives but > it's just a big chunk of work that we haven't been able to schedule yet. > > So from my personal point of view I am trying to use those parameter names > as much as possible, as well as that general class outline, in the context > of transforming existing modules where I can't just start over. We haven't > reached the point where we're doing much from scratch so these kinds of > design things haven't come up as we're trying to find ways to work within > what we got! >
> So there's a totally unofficial answer, but I think hunner is generally on > the same page as me. We see the need for a standardized list of parameter > names/layout that is recommended, and we're in favor of moving towards it. > > Alessandro, here's a proposal that might help - > https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppet/pull/1718 is a PR about improving > the skeleton that module generate creates. It would be awesome to see if > we can get electrical and you to work together to put together a skeleton > that a/ reflects the class layout in that doc (probably just > install,config,service and init as a skeleton) as well as a STANDARDS.md or > GUIDELINES.md document that includes all those parameters. That way the > information would be right there whenever a user creates a module. > Wow, that's what I call a direct approach, pushing a PR directly on puppet code to set "standards de facto"... wonder what some persons on this list would say about that (John?). I still think that trying to find a shared agreement on naming standards is a step to do before pushing the whole default layout of puppet module generate. Anyway I'll gladly accept your invitation to prepare a STANDARDS.md and a module skeleton PR , but, really , I think some (not so many actually) naming patterns still need discussion (package or package_name?) as in some cases I've deliberately introduced them (dependency_class? options_hash? user_class? install_*? monitor_* ? firewall_*?... ) and even if they make a lot of sense for me it might not be the same for others. > > It would go a huge way towards getting these adopted I think if you > integrated that document directly into the module skeleton. It would make > it easy for busy people like me juggling modules to constantly refer to the > document as I'd have copies of it all over the place. :) > Any place suggested by PuppetLabs on where to define modules standards is ok for me. If the discussion can be done directly on the relevant PR, it's ok for me too. Thank you for the reply, Al -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
