On Aug 25, 2010, at 1:53 PM, Nigel Kersten wrote: > On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Luke Kanies <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Rein, Paul, and I had a call today discussing whether we should produce a >> 1.6 (I said no, unless there are high priority tickets that really need to >> be worked on), and then what the design goals of 2.0 should be. I took >> notes on our discussion and atempted to produce a doc capturing it all: >> >> http://projects.puppetlabs.com/projects/facter/wiki/ArchitectureForTwoDotOh > > I have a few thoughts churning around about Facter having native > support for storing fact evaluation history on the client, which ties > into the open feature request for caching fact values, and I noticed > you reference a ttl option in #4565. >
It'd be great to hear these. > Simplifying the DSL for the common case is hugely appealing. Yeah, although I think external, non-ruby facts will end up being more appealing. -- A motion to adjourn is always in order. --Robert Heinlein --------------------------------------------------------------------- Luke Kanies -|- http://puppetlabs.com -|- +1(615)594-8199 -- 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.
