thx guys, i was not aware of this version'ing view in open source.
so i am now trying to use this module now. but i guess i have a very basic issue: currently i am running following in a loop for all hosts (and a inner loop for all commands for a host): my ($MFSSH) = Net::OpenSSH->new($HOST, user => $USER, password => $PASS, default_stderr_fh => $stderr_fh, default_stdout_fh => $stdout_fh, master_opts => [-o => 'StrictHostKeyChecking=no', -o => 'ConnectTimeout 10'], ); $EXITCODE = $MFSSH->error; next if ($EXITCODE ne "0"); #go to next host if ssh fails foreach $CMD (@MFCMDS){ chomp($CMD); ( @CMDRESULT, $CMDERR ) = $MFSSH->capture("$CMD"); } how can i use Net::OpenSSH::Parallel this script? i mean i understood creating a new instance like pssh in the module CPAN page, but not sure how to integrate it with the script i already have. thx in advance. Rajeev ________________________________ From: Shlomi Fish <shlo...@shlomifish.org> To: Paul Johnson <p...@pjcj.net> Cc: Rajeev Prasad <rp.ne...@yahoo.com>; Perl Beginners <beginners@perl.org> Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 1:04 AM Subject: Re: how good is Net::OpenSSH::Parallel in your experience On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 02:32:58 +0200 Paul Johnson <p...@pjcj.net> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 04:35:07PM -0700, Rajeev Prasad wrote: > > > Hi > > > > i am planning to use this module, but its version is 0.11 ! and author says > > it is beta quality. i am using Net::OpenSSH which is also below ver 1.0 > > but i have had no issues with it so far. > > > > does anyone have any good/bad experience with this module? > > I don't, but I think you are probbaly reading far too much into both the > version number and its described status. 0.11 may well mean that the module > has had 11 releases. Would you consider that good or bad? It depends, I > suppose. > > And beta quality? That *should* mean that the author believes the module is > complete, functional and working apart from any already noted bugs, and it is > now ready for further testing in real world situations by real users. That > seems to be pretty good quality to me. Indeed. As Eric Raymond notes in: http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/homesteading/ar01s13.html <<< This rule underlies the fact that open-source software tends to stay in beta for a long time, and not get even a 1.0 version number until the developers are very sure it will not hand out a lot of nasty surprises. In the closed-source world, Version 1.0 means ``Don't touch this if you're prudent.''; in the open-source world it reads something more like ``The developers are willing to bet their reputations on this.''. >>> Also there's some discussion of Padre reaching version 1.0 here: http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/pipermail/perldl/2010-April/002930.html And I should note that most of my original modules on http://search.cpan.org/~shlomif/ are below 1.0 (possibly the only exception is HTML-Widgets-NavMenu, where I bumped the middle version digit too liberally and had to release 1.0), and yet they should be usable. On the fun side see this IRC conversation: <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <d3x> btw, you can do mplayer -dumpaudio -dumpfile file.mp3 <d3x> no need to reencode <rindolf> This -dumpfile is a nice trick. <rindolf> Is it new? <rindolf> I wonder when mplayer will hit 1.0 already. <rindolf> Ah. <rindolf> All the stuff I saw told me to use WAV and then encode. <d3x> mplayer and 1.0? i'm not really sure it's their goal <rindolf> They will stay at 1.0RC-foo forever? <d3x> although i would be glad if they had some sensible versioning <rindolf> Yes. <rindolf> At the moment perl-Mojolicious is at 0.999924. <rindolf> At least perl-Moose hit 1.00 <d3x> lol <rindolf> Without any substantial changes from 0.99. <rindolf> But you've got to upgrade somehow. <rindolf> perl-Moose is MDV/RH notation, but I like it. <d3x> imo it's just stupid not to release 1.0 <rindolf> I dislike libmoose-perl <rindolf> Yes. <d3x> wine did so and now they have normal versioning <rindolf> Though most of my CPAN modules are sub-1.0. <rindolf> http://search.cpan.org/~shlomif/ <rindolf> I think except for one module (where I used 0.2.0 0.4.0 and eventually hit 0.8.0 and had to go to 1.000) all my 1.0 and above modules are adopted. <d3x> they are sub-1.0, but they are not 0.9.999.2010.03.11-rc5 <d3x> :) <rindolf> One of them used the CVS revisions as versions. <rindolf> d3x : LOL. <rindolf> Yes. <rindolf> d3x: can I quote you on that? <d3x> i say it's stupid to make releases up to 0.9.something and then not to release 1.0 <rindolf> I collect quotes on my homepage. <d3x> sure you can <rindolf> At the moment I have freecell-solver-2.42.0 <rindolf> But I hope the new release will be 3.0.0 <d3x> the one that was bought by freecell enterprise? :D <rindolf> I've left GNOME and gtk+/glib behind. <rindolf> d3x yes. <rindolf> Freecell Solver Enterprises™ Inc. <rindolf> Ah, so you've seen that. <d3x> yes, you posted a link on #debian <rindolf> Yes. <rindolf> You should add a digest to the version. <rindolf> 0.9.999.2010.03.11-rc5-adc83b19e793491b1c6ea0fd8b46cd9f32e592fc <d3x> lol <rindolf> In case you're using git or hg. -- d3x and Shlomi Fish (rindolf) about FOSS Versioning -- private conversation, Freenode >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (from http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/fortunes/show.cgi?id=d3x-and-shlomif-about-foss-versioning ). Regards, Shlomi Fish -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ Escape from GNU Autohell - http://www.shlomifish.org/open-source/anti/autohell/ To err is human; to apologise — divine. Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply . -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: beginners-unsubscr...@perl.org For additional commands, e-mail: beginners-h...@perl.org http://learn.perl.org/