Re: [Puppet-dev] Discussion for fixing 2.6.5 regression around :absent -> correct_value changes.

2011-03-02 Thread R.I.Pienaar
- Original Message - > On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 8:07 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote: > > > Consider this. > > > >  * Today you enable auditing, state.yaml gets the audit properties > >  all is fine. > >  * 6 months later you disable auditing - now the audit properties > >  remain but are > >   orp

Re: [Puppet-dev] Discussion for fixing 2.6.5 regression around :absent -> correct_value changes.

2011-03-02 Thread Nigel Kersten
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 8:07 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote: > Consider this. > >  * Today you enable auditing, state.yaml gets the audit properties all is > fine. >  * 6 months later you disable auditing - now the audit properties remain but > are >   orphaned as we're not purging them >  * you now chan

Re: [Puppet-dev] Discussion for fixing 2.6.5 regression around :absent -> correct_value changes.

2011-03-02 Thread Markus Roberts
R.I. -- >> I'm not sure that the "how it got in there" part is irrelevant (for >> instance, I'd like if you could confirm that state.yaml shows >> type=>absent on a node that has not been upgraded, and note the > yes, all my nodes have it - before upgrading. and people on IRC also > has it witho

Re: [Puppet-dev] Discussion for fixing 2.6.5 regression around :absent -> correct_value changes.

2011-03-02 Thread R.I.Pienaar
- Original Message - > > !ruby/sym type: !ruby/sym absent > > for files that were _never_ set to absent. Setting them to ensure => > absent > today doesnt result in the same line being written either, I think > there's > some combination of properties, source etc that causes this. > >

Re: [Puppet-dev] Discussion for fixing 2.6.5 regression around :absent -> correct_value changes.

2011-03-02 Thread Markus Roberts
R.I. -- > > If :absent is there, I believe it was correct (that is, that the > > > file really was absent). > > the file wasn't absent. This is the thing we need to be trying to reproduce then. also notice its :type not :ensure. > That's an implementation detail, which I don't think we need to

Re: [Puppet-dev] Discussion for fixing 2.6.5 regression around :absent -> correct_value changes.

2011-03-02 Thread R.I.Pienaar
- Original Message - > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Markus Roberts > wrote: > > N -- > > > >> > That is reassuring. > >> > > >> > I think if we peel away: > >> > > >> > * the "always auditing" bug > >> > >> Yes. I believe this is fixed by Jesse's patch you reviewed: > >> > >> > >> htt

Re: [Puppet-dev] Discussion for fixing 2.6.5 regression around :absent -> correct_value changes.

2011-03-01 Thread Nigel Kersten
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Markus Roberts wrote: > N -- > >> > That is reassuring. >> > >> > I think if we peel away: >> > >> > * the "always auditing" bug >> >> Yes. I believe this is fixed by Jesse's patch you reviewed: >> >> >> https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppet/commit/e3dfe41ce7da108fc3

Re: [Puppet-dev] Discussion for fixing 2.6.5 regression around :absent -> correct_value changes.

2011-03-01 Thread Markus Roberts
N -- > That is reassuring. > > > > I think if we peel away: > > > > * the "always auditing" bug > > Yes. I believe this is fixed by Jesse's patch you reviewed: > > > https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppet/commit/e3dfe41ce7da108fc345e58c7df8c1576ea951a0 > > > * the "audits notify" surprise > > This i

Re: [Puppet-dev] Discussion for fixing 2.6.5 regression around :absent -> correct_value changes.

2011-03-01 Thread Nigel Kersten
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Markus Roberts wrote: > > >> If you were on 2.6.4 (and probably earlier) and >>  if you managed a file with the source parameter and >>  if the local file was absent or content differed, we wrote out: >> >>    !ruby/sym type: !ruby/sym absent >> >>    !ruby/sym owne

Re: [Puppet-dev] Discussion for fixing 2.6.5 regression around :absent -> correct_value changes.

2011-03-01 Thread Markus Roberts
If you were on 2.6.4 (and probably earlier) and > if you managed a file with the source parameter and > if the local file was absent or content differed, we wrote out: > >!ruby/sym type: !ruby/sym absent !ruby/sym owner: !ruby/sym absent > > to state.yaml, even if you weren't auditing.

Re: [Puppet-dev] Discussion for fixing 2.6.5 regression around :absent -> correct_value changes.

2011-03-01 Thread Markus Roberts
I'm having trouble framing a response, in part because I think the question is posed at the wrong level. Specifically, rather than talking about the "symbols" that are being written to state.yaml we should be asking about the conditions that they signify. The question as posed sounds as if it's a

[Puppet-dev] Discussion for fixing 2.6.5 regression around :absent -> correct_value changes.

2011-03-01 Thread Nigel Kersten
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users/msg/817d8af153f504a4 Recap is below for those of you jumping in late: Can we fix this in the code? Can we identify cases where "!ruby/sym absent" was written out, and not fire an event when we update from that to a new value? Recap: On 2.6.5, we a