On 2013-07-13 20:26, Alessandro Franceschi wrote:
Wow, that's what I call a direct approach, pushing a PR directly on puppet code to set "standards de facto"... wonder what some persons on this list would say about that (John?). I still think that trying to find a shared agreement on naming standards is a step to do before pushing the whole default layout of puppet module generate. Anyway I'll gladly accept your invitation to prepare a STANDARDS.md and a module skeleton PR , but, really , I think some (not so many actually) naming patterns still need discussion (package or package_name?) as in some cases I've deliberately introduced them (dependency_class? options_hash? user_class? install_*? monitor_* ? firewall_*?... ) and even if they make a lot of sense for me it might not be the same for others.
You don't have to push all at once. I think the resource_ensure pattern seems to be well accepted, even if some details might still require more hashing out/experimenting.
Establishing the discussion at the "source" (pardon the pun) will also help to get the broadest exposure to the topic.
Regards, David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
