On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Stefan Schulte <[email protected]> wrote: > What about replace => false. If the file is not there we dont need > checksums because we know we have to copy the file. If the file is > present we dont need to calculate checksums because we wont replace > anyway. I think thats a valid usecase where you have a source property > and no checksum parameter.
We will be adding more intelligent behavior around checksumming so we simply ignore checksumming in situations like this, but not right now. That would be a significant enough change it would be introduced in a major version, not a minor. > >> One of the problems with this model, though, is that there's a semantic >> difference between writing the file out and not - if you've got a service >> that needs to get restarted if the file changes, but not if it doesn't, then >> you can't just write it out every time. >> >> On Dec 16, 2010, at 7:49 PM, Trevor Vaughan wrote: >> > I disagree. >> > >> > Look at the concat module. Why waste resources checksumming when it >> > would be more efficient to just write out the file? >> > >> > Read + Checksum + (potential) Write is more I/O and CPU intensive than >> > Write. >> > >> > Trevor >> > >> > On 12/16/2010 07:25 PM, Nigel Kersten wrote: >> >> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Jesse A Wolfe <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Note that we changed the desired behavior to fail with a syntax error >> >> instead. >> >> >> >> It doesn't make sense to not checksum and specify content/source. > > -Stefan > -- Nigel Kersten - Puppet Labs - http://www.puppetlabs.com -- 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.
