Re: [Puppet Users] RFC: Being able to exclude resources from reporting.

2011-10-05 Thread R.I.Pienaar
- Original Message - > So, my essential point is that if that file did change – and it > genuinely did – we should report that back, and provide better tools > to filter it on the server side. The advantage of filtering on the > client rather than the server is minimal, given we compress

Re: [Puppet Users] RFC: Being able to exclude resources from reporting.

2011-10-05 Thread Daniel Pittman
So, my essential point is that if that file did change – and it genuinely did – we should report that back, and provide better tools to filter it on the server side. The advantage of filtering on the client rather than the server is minimal, given we compress the data transmitted, so you are talki

Re: [Puppet Users] RFC: Being able to exclude resources from reporting.

2011-10-04 Thread Matthew Black
I could see a use case for it. When generating the facts.yaml for use with mcollective, the reports are showing always at 1 change because of that even if I set the log level to debug. That file will always change every run because the information stored in facter is changes with each run. I ca

Re: [Puppet Users] RFC: Being able to exclude resources from reporting.

2011-10-04 Thread Daniel Pittman
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:16, Nigel Kersten wrote: > As per: https://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/7555 > it looks like we've got some use cases around excluding some resources from > being reported on to reduce noise. This feels like solving the problem on the wrong side to me. > Should we im

[Puppet Users] RFC: Being able to exclude resources from reporting.

2011-10-04 Thread Nigel Kersten
As per: https://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/7555 it looks like we've got some use cases around excluding some resources from being reported on to reduce noise. Should we implement a metaparameter like this? Do the use cases justify breaking the consistency of the model (report on everything) ?