On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 1:00:14 PM UTC-6, Jeff McCune wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:27 AM, John Bollinger <john.bo...@stjude.org > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> Additionally, avoiding hardcoded paths and avoiding the assumption that >> Puppet has a private Ruby to play around in will be helpful (and wise in >> any case). >> > > If the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior then our > components will make assumptions about hardcoded paths and the location of > specific dependencies like Ruby, Java, etc... I don't think it's possible > to avoid this outcome given the number of people and teams working on the > various projects and the desire to reduce the complexity of the system. > >
I don't accept that it's impossible, but I would believe that it would require effort, resources, and discipline that PL is unwilling to invest. I think you are making a poor decision, at least from a design perspective, but it's your call to make. > Do you have a sense of how much impact this will be on you John? > If I cannot install Puppet into a Ruby installation of my choice (of sufficiently recent version) and have it work correctly, or if its installation alters the behavior of other software relying on that Ruby, then I do not foresee updating until I or someone else can fix those problems. I am unlikely to be able to devote any effort to such an endeavor any time soon, so my adoption of the new version would be forestalled indefinitely. John -- 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/eaf0b122-ae6e-47e5-b75f-b17c8a71bb33%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
