I thing that recursive copies are the type that fits worst into the current
code; I suggest we move that out and then wait and see if symlinks should
follow or not.
Regards,
Daniel
--
Puppet Labs Developer –http://puppetlabs.com
Daniel Pittman <dan...@puppetlabs.com>
Contact me via gtalk, email, or phone: +1 (877) 575-9775
Sent from a mobile device. Please forgive me if this is briefer than usual.
On Mar 21, 2011 6:53 PM, "Nigel Kersten" <ni...@puppetlabs.com> wrote:
> The file{} type can do all of the following:
>
> * manage single files
> * manage directories
> * manage symlinks
> * manage recursive file copies
>
> The intersection of all these bits of functionality makes it difficult
> to understand exactly what is going on when you're new to Puppet, and
> even experienced users often don't know how combining symlinks/content
> management is going to work.
>
> How would people feel about at least splitting out these into their own
types?
>
> * symlinks
> * recursive file copies
>
> The intersection of files and directories isn't that big a deal, but
> we could split out directories too if we wanted.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> --
> Nigel Kersten
> Product, Puppet Labs
> @nigelkersten
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Developers" group.
> To post to this group, send email to puppet-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.
>
--
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.
