Thanks Chris -- You received this message because you are subscribed
to the
Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email
to ...
http://groups.google.com/g/4ad7fae7/t/8aea1da5bfcd991b/d/941afa013a8dde98?...
http://123maza.com/65/tulasi551/
--
You received this messa
On 06/11/2011 01:06 PM, Nan Liu wrote:
I'm not sure if I captured the intention well, essentially still want
a way to coarsely organize classes, however without adding any
dependency requirement. So deploy user accounts/customization after
application deployment, however still proceed with user
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 6:39 AM, Vagn Scott wrote:
> Let's see: Then I could do
>
> Stage { ensure => enforcement, }
>
> at the top and get the behavior I want:
> prerequisites are satisfied before moving on.
>
> But, what's the use case for relationship?
> Why would I want that?
>
> consider thre
Let's see: Then I could do
Stage { ensure => enforcement, }
at the top and get the behavior I want:
prerequisites are satisfied before moving on.
But, what's the use case for relationship?
Why would I want that?
consider three stages in various
combinations of enforcement (e) and relationship
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 6:12 AM, Nigel Kersten wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Jacob Helwig 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 stag
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 6:35 AM, Dan Bode wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 6:42 PM, 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 i
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 6:42 PM, 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
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 4:35 AM, Vagn Scott wrote:
> Puppet already has stage[ Main ] which is the only
> stage it needs to define. All other stages
> can be defined relative to main and each other, and should
> be a matter of convention.
This is true, but only if you don't care about sharing
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Jacob Helwig 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 reus
Puppet already has stage[ Main ] which is the only
stage it needs to define. All other stages
can be defined relative to main and each other, and should
be a matter of convention. So I think it would be more
fruitful to talk about the purpose of stages, along with
their proposed names.
For exam
On 10 June 2011 09:06, Brice Figureau wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 18:50 -0700, Jacob Helwig 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
>
On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 18:50 -0700, Jacob Helwig 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 reu
On 10 Jun 2011 07:52, "Jacob Helwig" wrote:
>
> Chris Phillips wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10 June 2011 02:50, Jacob Helwig wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 18:42:54 -0700, Nigel Kersten wrote:
>>> >
>>> > https://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/7697
>>> >
>>> > One problem people producing modules t
Chris Phillips wrote:
On 10 June 2011 02:50, Jacob Helwig 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 r
On 10 June 2011 02:50, Jacob Helwig 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
I prefer having a small number of predefined stages in puppet.
This makes it easier to share modules which use stages.
My suggestion:
- a small number of stages is easier to remeber
- a samll numer of possibilities makes people think in advance in which
stage they need to put their module
Additio
A while back I wrote down all the puppet patterns
I could think of, and this was one of them.
I named it Cradle To Grave, but probably that's not
appropriate. However, I was only focusing on
puppet runs at the time, so that name popped into my head.
It is an instance of the more general pattern
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
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
hav
19 matches
Mail list logo
