I would love to see puppet forge as we have the distribution repositories.. Modules audited, tested and maybe fixed by PuppetLabs and then officially released on puppet forge under the puppetlabs account.
I see some scenarios that puppetlabs could consider: 1. puppetlabs is taking a lot of time to check pull requests on their forge modules and release new versions. I sent a pull request some days ago for one of their modules and I noticed there were other pull requests for the same module submitted a few "months ago" that weren't merged yet. 2. Users could create modules following the modules standard by creating documentation, parameterized modules, etc and then Puppetlabs could easily onboard those modules under their account and start supporting the module officially. I try to use only puppetlabs modules on puppet forge because I know they have great quality. Regards, Felipe On Sunday, October 14, 2012 9:53:12 AM UTC-7, yersinia.spiros wrote: > > Everyone had ever used the puppet forge know this. The forge today are > collection of modules, with a different degree of quality. But this > quality is not enforced by a external authority, there is not any > review. Think about it : it is a forge. Like sf.net for some open > source software, some project are good, other less. It is totally > different from the repos that the distributions offer, that contain > packages that had a quality control, formal review, mantainer, a bus > tracking system and so on. > > My 2cent. Best regards > > 2012/10/14, Mister Guru <mister...@gmail.com <javascript:>>: > > Good Afternoon All, > > > > I'm just pondering - I think that my expectations of the forge are not > 100% > > aligned, or I'm still rubbish with puppet! > > > > I imagine the forge to be used in the following scenario/way > > > > I'm in a situation where I need to provision package X in a particular > way. > > I fire up my terminal: > > > > $ puppet module search packageX > > Searching https://forge.puppetlabs.com ... > > NAME DESCRIPTION AUTHOR > > KEYWORDS > > author-packageX Function Y @author > > packageX > > > > Great! Someone has already published a module for my package - So I > install > > it > > > > $ puppet module install author-packageX > > > > I fire up my puppet dashboard, and I create a new class, and I add it to > my > > test rig > > > > At this point my expectation is that I should get a basic vanilla > > install/configuration of that package and dependencies. For example, if > the > > package is MySql, I'm expecting to have a working default install of > MySql > > after my test rig checks in. My faith starts to shake when I'm looking > at > > modules like wordpress. Picture the scene. > > > > Now, If I'm building a wordpress module, it's going to have a few > > dependencies, MySQL, and Apache etc - By chance, I already have some of > my > > own modules that install MySQL and Apache, I'll just reuse those in my > > wordpress module. After two days I give up, and notice that there is a > > module on the forge for wordpress. Now I'm stuck, because I'm assuming > that > > the author has done similar work to what I did - I'm going to spend > quite > > some time making sure the forge modules play nice with my custom ones. > > > > Using the forge feels like installing packages from a repository, and > one > > thing that I think we all expect, is that all the packages in a > repository > > work together - Which is not the case with the forge, as anyone can > publish > > anything at anytime. (I may be wrong, but this is how I'm reasoning > through > > my paranoia!) > > > > This causes a mental stumbling block for me, because > > > > $ puppet module install packageX > > > > doesn't invoke the same sense of security as > > > > $ apt-get/yum update packageX > > > > even though they are both essentially doing the same thing - pulling in > open > > source code from the outside world to configure my system. > > > > I'm hoping that my reasoning is flawed, and that a few of you are > chuckling > > as you read this calling me a NooBie Donkey! Is the forge suppose to a > place > > for people to post examples, and am I then expected to edit that code > > accordingly to fit my environment? If so, then what would be the > motivation > > to push my changes back? > > > > Sorry if I sound incoherent here - I'm trying to determine how best to > make > > use of the forge, otherwise I'll end up just reinventing the wheel and > > writing up manifests from scratch, which to me defeats the purpose. > > > > Discuss :) > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > "Puppet Users" group. > > To post to this group, send email to > > puppet...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > puppet-users...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en. > > > > > > -- > Inviato dal mio dispositivo mobile > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/9YCrqycCxs8J. 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.
