Hi, It would really help if you elaborated on your use cases in this thread. I read the one message you linked but I'm still not sure about it and I don't feel like reading the whole other thread to get context. If you propose a feature part of that proposal should be a rationale and intended use cases. Preferably with a comparison of how this makes things better compared to the old setup.
On Friday, 13 March 2015 16:52:13 UTC+1, Bostjan Skufca wrote: > > > > On Thursday, 12 March 2015 23:31:58 UTC+1, Felix Frank wrote: >> >> On 03/11/2015 05:56 PM, Bostjan Skufca wrote: >> > >> > I would like to hear your opinion about this, and whether this would >> > be useful for you. >> > >> >> Hi, >> >> I don't believe that such a feature would be useful to a majority of >> users, myself included. >> >> I do see two disadvantages to adding this: >> 1. It adds complexity, of which there is no shortage as far as >> environments are concerned, at least that's my gut feeling. >> > > I agree up to a point here, but see the rest of the post below. > > > 2. It adds configuration options, so there is additional complexity for >> the end user as well. >> > I'm not saying we should remove as many configuration settings and >> options as possible, but we shouldn't go overboard with new ways for >> users to shoot themselves in the foot. >> > > For such an occasion I like to say that, yes, doing "rm -rf /" is bad, but > as a sysadmin I still want to have this tool available. :) > > Maybe puppet is becoming complex enough that Puppet Labs should think > about classifying configuration settings into two categories: basic and > advanced. This one (EEL) would definitely fall into advanced category, and > directory environments should be advocated/documented as primary way to > create/use environments. > > Anyway, what I am trying to say is: > - puppet should not be holding power users back as a sacrifice for being > nice to novices; > That's a very broad argument that can be applied to the whole universe. It's not backed up by facts or any data, it's just a "thing you can say". > - puppet should strike a good balance between both extremes, by means of > feature implementation and documentation organisation; > You can't strike a balance between both extremes by having both, you need to meet in the middle. Which means maybe not all the features and maybe not the greatest documentation but enough of both so people don't shoot themselves. > - achieving such a balance is not easy, I admit; > Balance means weighing things against each other. Having both all the features and excellent documentation and making sure that people can't shoot themselves is very very very hard. It's precisely because of this that we decide to reject features at times. > - puppet is a power tool, and irresponsible users that rush into using it, > should not stand in the way of progress > Again, that's just a thing you can say. It sounds very impressive, but what does it mean and how does it apply to reality? Irresponsible users or not, we're the ones that get flack for it, that need to support it, that have crying users and get a bad name because "Puppet nuked my system". It will never be their fault, it will always be the fault of the system. > > > b. > > -- 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/49ac13a8-9402-4a22-9b57-fe6974ce9411%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
