Re: [Puppet Users] RFC: Adding implicit stages to Puppet
Let's see: Then I could do
Stage { ensure = enforcement, }
at the top and get the behavior I want:
prerequisites are satisfied before moving on.
But, what's the use case for relationship?
Why would I want that?
consider three stages in various
combinations of enforcement (e) and relationship (r)
0. e e e
1. e e r
2. e r e
3. e r r
4. r e e
5. r e r
6. r r e
7. r r r
Does it matter how we define the third stage?
I think it is a don't-care:
[0,1]. e e -
[2,3]. e r -
[4,5]. r e -
[6,7]. r r -
And then the 2nd stage is a don't-care:
[0,1,2,3]. e - -
[4,5,6,7]. r - -
And then none of them matter:
[*]. - - -
It seems to me that stages are only sensible if they
are either all enforcement or all relationship,
but not mixed. So, if I had to choose I
would choose enforcement, because I have other ways to
express relationship (before/after/require/notify).
Also, suppose I set
Stage { ensure = enforcement, }
for the site and some module decides to do:
stage { 'unique_snowflake':
before = Stage['whatever'],
ensure = relationship,
}
What does that do to my design?
Since enforcement subsumes relationship, anyway,
why don't stages just do enforcement?
--
vagn
On 06/10/2011 11:15 PM, Nan Liu wrote:
There are two intended use case for stages and I was hoping we can
split them up into:
1. stages for bootstrap that will halt processing of dependent stages.
2. stages for relationship organization that will not halt processing
of subsequent stages.
stage { 'bootstrap':
ensure = enforcement,
before = Stage['pre'],
}
stage { 'pre':
ensure = enforcement,
before = Stage['main']
}
stage { 'main':
ensure = relationship,
before = Stage['post']
}
stage { 'post':
}
Stages that are enforcement must have all resource completed, stages
that are purely relationship do not block subsequent stages, but
resource dependency still apply within the stage. Would something like
this make sense?
Thanks,
Nan
--
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.
Re: [Puppet Users] how to do conditional check?
Thanks kc! I probably didn't myself clear. I don't wanna create the the config directory, in stead,* if it exists*, then make sure config file is present with those info. Cheers!! -- 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/-/FN4cuCrWX94J. 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.
Re: [Puppet Users] RFC: Adding implicit stages to Puppet
On 06/11/2011 01:06 PM, Nan Liu wrote: I'm not sure if I captured the intention well, essentially still want a way to coarsely organize classes, however without adding any dependency requirement. So deploy user accounts/customization after application deployment, however still proceed with user deployment even if there was any issues with the application deployment. If you are not expressing dependency, then where is the need for organizing the classes? Couldn't you just as well run the classes in alphabetical order? We already have Class[ foo ] - Class[ baz ] Which implies a topological sort. But it fails to capture that one set of classes must succeed before another set can be attempted. I think stages should express that kind of boundary, and not just be another expression of sequencing. Are you perhaps talking about a rendezvous, where multiple sequences of stages all have to complete before the rendezvous will unblock? a - b - c - g d - f - c With c as a rendezvous d and f can complete even if a stalls. Nothing in c or g will run until all of [ a b d f ] complete. In my thinking this was implicit in enforcement. But maybe rendezvous is a more descriptive term. -- vagn -- 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.
Re: [Puppet Users] Puppet Support for OSX
This is great to know! I guess I have to make some time do some research and testing, I've inherited a lot of mac desktops, and *boy* it's a mess! So, I'm glad at the moment. Now comes the hard part of getting it working! On 08/06/2011 16:00, James Turnbull ja...@puppetlabs.com wrote: Mister IT Guru wrote: Hi guys I was wondering how well puppet performs on OSX. Anyone here had any experience using puppet under OSX? Very well and it's well supported. Google uses it to manage their internal OSX desktops as do a number of other companies, universities, etc. Regards James -- James Turnbull Puppet Labs 1-503-734-8571 -- 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. -- 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.
