On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 08:13 -0700, Markus Roberts wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Brice Figureau > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 07:28 -0700, Markus Roberts wrote: > > > Yes, you're right, I won't buy it either :-) > > /me should remember to not do puppet development > after a 10 > > hours work > > day... > > > > Well, I won't throw stones. I just realized that I > mislabeled the > > patch I sent last night containing my version of the fix as > #2666 > > instead on #2664. > > > Actually that's not your fault. > > James created #2666 as the refactor ticket, but afterward he > certainly > changed his mind and re-opened #2664 and merged #2666 to > #2664. > > My attempt at fixing this issue was also labeled #2666 because > I got the > e-mail notification of this ticket. So I'm not surprised you > kept this > ticket number :-) > > Ah. And here I thought it was just the first cold fingers of > senility. That's a relief.
:-) > So what to you think of the Token#acceptable? approach? At first glance it looks fine. I didn't had time for an extensive review of the patch, though. Just I was surprised you didn't add any specific tests for the case that matters, but you might have sent an early bird version of the patch. -- Brice Figureau Follow the latest Puppet Community evolutions on www.planetpuppet.org! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
