On 01/24/2011 09:39 PM, R.I.Pienaar wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> On Jan 24, 2011, at 11:17 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote: >> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> If we don't want --manual you could go with --watch as that's >>>> really >>>> what I'm doing - watching puppet run. :) >>> >>> >>> I like --watch too >> >> I hope this is a joke. I really think this name is a worse fit than >> "--test". > > I run --test when I want to log into a machine and watch it do a run > in a slightly more verbose and debug/observation friendly manner. > 'watch' seems to describe this use case well, it doesnt imply that no > changes will be made for example. > > I'd want to run --test when I want it to imply what --test does today > but also --noop which is what most newcomers on irc also seem to think. > The word 'test' seems to imply a dry run
I was under the impression that there was consensus that the semantics of --test should not be changed, ever, in order not to break scripts out there in the wild. Deprecating and loosing --test altogether seems to be less of a problem. I concur with Patrick in that puppetd --watch is about as misleading as --test itself. I'd expect such an invocation to allow me to monitor the regular proceedings of the background agent. It doesn't appear to imply a forced ad hoc action, much less the cache semantics. I still favor --manual. Regards, Felix -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
