Re: [Puppet-dev] Re: How strict do you want puppet to be?

On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 12:06:08 PM UTC-5, Hunter Haugen wrote: > > > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 7:45:46 PM UTC-6, Trevor Vaughan wrote: >>> >>> Sorry about that. >>> >>> What I mean is this: >>> >>> A -> [] -> B is not equivalent to A -> B since failures in A will not >>> affect

Re: [Puppet-dev] Re: How strict do you want puppet to be?

> On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 7:45:46 PM UTC-6, Trevor Vaughan wrote: >> >> Sorry about that. >> >> What I mean is this: >> >> A -> [] -> B is not equivalent to A -> B since failures in A will not >> affect B. >> >> However, it would be equivalent to [A,B] which I am reading as A before B >>

Re: [Puppet-dev] Re: How strict do you want puppet to be?

On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 7:45:46 PM UTC-6, Trevor Vaughan wrote: > > Sorry about that. > > What I mean is this: > > A -> [] -> B is not equivalent to A -> B since failures in A will not > affect B. > > However, it would be equivalent to [A,B] which I am reading as A before B > but not

Re: [Puppet-dev] Re: How strict do you want puppet to be?

Sorry about that. What I mean is this: A -> [] -> B is not equivalent to A -> B since failures in A will not affect B. However, it would be equivalent to [A,B] which I am reading as A before B but not in an actual resource relationship. And, it makes sense that A -> [] and [] -> B would not be

[Puppet-dev] Re: How strict do you want puppet to be?

On 25/02/16 23:50, Trevor Vaughan wrote: I just want to make sure I'm reading this right. For the first scenario, noop means don't order anything, just do things in whatever order they happen. And the second scenario is: don't fail B if A fails (don't create a relationship), but do A before B

Re: [Puppet-dev] Re: How strict do you want puppet to be?

I just want to make sure I'm reading this right. For the first scenario, noop means don't order anything, just do things in whatever order they happen. And the second scenario is: don't fail B if A fails (don't create a relationship), but do A before B Is this correct? If it is, I favor the

[Puppet-dev] Re: How strict do you want puppet to be?

On 25/02/16 22:08, John Bollinger wrote: On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 8:55:01 AM UTC-6, Trevor Vaughan wrote: Hmm. I think, as long as it is documented, then whatever behavior is deterministic is fine. ' I think that there is value in the following resolutions:

Re: [Puppet-dev] Re: How strict do you want puppet to be?

On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 8:55:01 AM UTC-6, Trevor Vaughan wrote: > > Hmm. > > I think, as long as it is documented, then whatever behavior is > deterministic is fine. > ' > I think that there is value in the following resolutions: > > Notify['left'] -> [] -> Notify['right'] > *

Re: [Puppet-dev] Re: How strict do you want puppet to be?

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Hunter Haugen wrote: > I am following up with a runtime type strictness thing. > >> >> If you have a construct like this in your manifests: >> >> Notify['left'] -> $stuff -> Notify['right'] >> >> > Thansk for asking! For me, I would prefer

Re: [Puppet-dev] Re: How strict do you want puppet to be?

I am following up with a runtime type strictness thing. > > If you have a construct like this in your manifests: > > Notify['left'] -> $stuff -> Notify['right'] > > Thansk for asking! For me, I would prefer the ordering to follow left -> right, and not error or warn. If I have expressed

[Puppet-dev] Re: How strict do you want puppet to be?

On 25/02/16 15:08, Gary Larizza wrote: On Wednesday, February 24, 2016, Gary Larizza > wrote: On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:47 PM, Henrik Lindberg

Re: [Puppet-dev] Re: How strict do you want puppet to be?

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:47 PM, Henrik Lindberg < henrik.lindb...@puppetlabs.com> wrote: > On 23/02/16 01:47, Henrik Lindberg wrote: > >> Hi, I am thinking ahead a bit regarding puppet 5 and how we should deal >> with all the requests for features that require deprecations. (There are >> some

[Puppet-dev] Re: How strict do you want puppet to be?

On 23/02/16 01:47, Henrik Lindberg wrote: Hi, I am thinking ahead a bit regarding puppet 5 and how we should deal with all the requests for features that require deprecations. (There are some related things like requests for additional validation and warnings that are different from

[Puppet-dev] Re: How strict do you want puppet to be?

On 24/02/16 20:24, Walter Heck wrote: On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 11:49:17 AM UTC+1, Trevor Vaughan wrote: I'm also a fan of per module which can override a global setting. If it could be part of the metadata.json, that would be ideal and would allow for attestation on the

Re: [Puppet-dev] Re: How strict do you want puppet to be?

+1 to the mode support in the metadata.json Dependency checking will be more fun. Trevor On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Walter Heck wrote: > On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 11:49:17 AM UTC+1, Trevor Vaughan wrote: >> >> I'm also a fan of per module which can

Re: [Puppet-dev] Re: How strict do you want puppet to be?

On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 11:49:17 AM UTC+1, Trevor Vaughan wrote: > > I'm also a fan of per module which can override a global setting. > > If it could be part of the metadata.json, that would be ideal and would > allow for attestation on the Forge if appropriate. > I gave this some

Re: [Puppet-dev] Re: How strict do you want puppet to be?

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 5:58 AM, Henrik Lindberg wrote: > On 24/02/16 11:49, Trevor Vaughan wrote: >> >> I'm also a fan of per module which can override a global setting. >> >> If it could be part of the metadata.json, that would be ideal and would >> allow for

[Puppet-dev] Re: How strict do you want puppet to be?

On 24/02/16 11:49, Trevor Vaughan wrote: I'm also a fan of per module which can override a global setting. If it could be part of the metadata.json, that would be ideal and would allow for attestation on the Forge if appropriate. The global --strict=off should override any module-level

Re: [Puppet-dev] Re: How strict do you want puppet to be?

I'm also a fan of per module which can override a global setting. If it could be part of the metadata.json, that would be ideal and would allow for attestation on the Forge if appropriate. The global --strict=off should override any module-level setting. Thanks, Trevor On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at

[Puppet-dev] Re: How strict do you want puppet to be?

On 24/02/16 00:27, Ryan Whitehurst wrote: On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Walter Heck wrote: On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 11:31:18 PM UTC+1, Ben Ford wrote: Would it be possible in this scheme to mark strict mode per class? I could mark my own code as being

[Puppet-dev] Re: How strict do you want puppet to be?

On 24/02/16 00:22, Walter Heck wrote: On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 11:31:18 PM UTC+1, Ben Ford wrote: Would it be possible in this scheme to mark strict mode per class? I could mark my own code as being strict and therefore get compile time failures when I make a typo myself,

[Puppet-dev] Re: How strict do you want puppet to be?

On 23/02/16 23:31, Ben Ford wrote: Would it be possible in this scheme to mark strict mode per class? I could mark my own code as being strict and therefore get compile time failures when I make a typo myself, but wouldn't have to enforce that on all third party code. Good idea, you probably