On Sat, Dec 07, 2013 at 10:11:24AM +1300, xav wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 11:31 -0500, Jerald Sheets wrote:
>
> > Please note that the exact same documentation is expected to be used
> > for either and people spending crap-tons of money are expected to put
> > up with the same issues. This is
Hi xav,
very good reply, and I'd like to second the notion that puppet is indeed
an impressive example of open source software, especially wrt. the
quality of its documentation.
On 12/06/2013 10:11 PM, xav wrote:
> I'd be keen to see more examples and helpful tutorials, but that's not
> core prod
On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 11:31 -0500, Jerald Sheets wrote:
> Please note that the exact same documentation is expected to be used
> for either and people spending crap-tons of money are expected to put
> up with the same issues. This is not a licensed/open source
> argument. This is a "do a better
>
> Possibly consider all the work you've put into implementing puppet on your
> own systems, and consequently how obtaining puppet gratis doesn't mean that
> it's free of cost.
>
>
Please note that the exact same documentation is expected to be used for
either and people spending crap-tons of mone
(inline)
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 05:35:13PM -0800, Philip Brown wrote:
>https://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/14368#change-101086
>
>Summary:
>
>(We dont need to improve our public documentation, because people can go
>BUY documentation for puppet)
>
>I can understand chang
https://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/14368#change-101086
Summary:
(We dont need to improve our public documentation, because people can go
BUY documentation for puppet)
I can understand changing it to low priority or something.
But *Rejecting* this issue?
For a supposedly "free, open source"
