On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Patrick <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Dec 19, 2010, at 6:35 AM, Nigel Kersten wrote: > >> On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Patrick <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Dec 18, 2010, at 7:23 AM, Nigel Kersten wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Morgan Haskel <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I've recently started using postrun_command. It seems very useful, but >>>>> I'd >>>>> really like to be able to optionally print the output from the postrun >>>>> command so the users can see any relevant messages. I patched 2.6.4 to >>>>> get >>>>> this working with the new options print_prerun_output and >>>>> print_postrun_output (both defaulting to false). >>>>> >>>>> My patch is included below. >>>> >>>> Thanks for the patch Morgan. >>>> >>>> Do you think it's reasonable to just always print the output of these >>>> commands? I'm trying to think whether there are use cases where it >>>> shouldn't be displayed that justify the added complexity of more >>>> configuration settings. >>>> >>> >>> >>> If the configuration option is left, think that defaulting that setting to >>> true on "--test" is reasonable? >> >> I kind of consider us to have dug ourselves into a hole with "--test" >> and I'd like to not make it any deeper :) > > I think this sounds like the sort of thing --test was made for, but I can see > your point, so whatever.
That's not a final decision in any way, and am happy to hear counter-arguments. What should we do about stderr for these commands? Should we log stdout *and* stderr ? -- 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.
