On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Felix Frank < felix.fr...@alumni.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> [snip] > > There are other exciting cases in there, such as "is a resource failed > if it's in sync but the refresh fails" and so forth. I feel that those > are more relevant, but should probably be handled on their own. This > should be possible, and I don't see that it would be contradictory for > the proposed design. In other words, fixes for related issues can likely > be implemented independently of merging this one. > > Specifically, one of the more disturbing examples from the ticket is this: > > http://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/5876#note-16 > > This one is not fixed through the proposed change. It will need another > change to the effect that a failure to refresh constitutes a resource > failure as well, I assume. Which it should. But, and I repeat myself on > purpose, this should be a different discussion. > Good points. I think that this issue would be a great candidate to fix for Puppet 4.0, but I think we should extract that to a separate ticket and address that separately. (For the fun of it I checked and I think it's a one line change to https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppet/blob/3.7.0/lib/puppet/transaction.rb#L224 to check for `s.failed_to_restart?` ) -- Adrien Thebo | Puppet Labs -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to puppet-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-dev/CALVJ9SLZbzJweVAM71rn6y1MVcmmkDQP7d7V2u7bxdkKVhTmpQ%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
