Re: [Puppet-dev] Solaris processorcount fact - what to do

2012-12-18 Thread Alex Harvey
Unfortunately I can't volunteer to document all these facts (I'd struggle to justify that one to my manager and/or wife :) but I've raised a bug with target version set to 2.0 and will submit a patch at some point- https://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/18215 -- You received this message becaus

Re: [Puppet-dev] Solaris processorcount fact - what to do

2012-12-17 Thread Andy Parker
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Jeff McCune wrote: > This is a great discussion, please keep it up! > > On Sunday, December 16, 2012, Alex Harvey wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, December 17, 2012 5:55:30 PM UTC+11, James Polley wrote: >> >>> >>> My reading is that, even if this is just a bugfix, th

Re: [Puppet-dev] Solaris processorcount fact - what to do

2012-12-17 Thread Jeff McCune
This is a great discussion, please keep it up! On Sunday, December 16, 2012, Alex Harvey wrote: > > > On Monday, December 17, 2012 5:55:30 PM UTC+11, James Polley wrote: >> >> >> My reading is that, even if this is just a bugfix, the fact that it's >> backwards-incompatible requires a major versi

Re: [Puppet-dev] Solaris processorcount fact - what to do

2012-12-16 Thread Alex Harvey
On Monday, December 17, 2012 5:55:30 PM UTC+11, James Polley wrote: > > > I don't think so. > > http://semver.org/ is quite specific about this: you can increment the > patch version "if only backwards compatible bug fixes are introduced", the > minor version "if new, backwards compatible funct

Re: [Puppet-dev] Solaris processorcount fact - what to do

2012-12-16 Thread James Polley
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Alex Harvey wrote: > > > On Monday, December 17, 2012 4:44:23 PM UTC+11, James Polley wrote: >> >> >> Because this change would be backwards-incompatible, SemVer requires that >> version with the fix increments the major version number, so this would >> have to go

Re: [Puppet-dev] Solaris processorcount fact - what to do

2012-12-16 Thread Alex Harvey
On Monday, December 17, 2012 4:44:23 PM UTC+11, James Polley wrote: > > > Because this change would be backwards-incompatible, SemVer requires that > version with the fix increments the major version number, so this would > have to go into 2.0.0. > I guess that takes us back to what was discus

Re: [Puppet-dev] Solaris processorcount fact - what to do

2012-12-16 Thread James Polley
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Alex Harvey wrote: > > > On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:20:54 PM UTC+11, Josh Cooper wrote: > >> In cases were I find a Windows fact is wrong, e.g. architecture[2], >> domain[3], I've taken the route that it's better to fix the bug and >> make it consistent with

Re: [Puppet-dev] Solaris processorcount fact - what to do

2012-12-16 Thread Alex Harvey
On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:20:54 PM UTC+11, Josh Cooper wrote: > In cases were I find a Windows fact is wrong, e.g. architecture[2], > domain[3], I've taken the route that it's better to fix the bug and > make it consistent with other platforms, than to not do so for fear of > making a b

Re: [Puppet-dev] Solaris processorcount fact - what to do

2012-12-10 Thread Josh Cooper
Hi Alex, On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Alex Harvey wrote: > Hi all, > > This follows discussion on puppet users with Andrew Beresford > https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=&pli=1#!topic/puppet-users/rOj9OszhlQM > > I was hoping to get more input from the community; now trying puppet >

[Puppet-dev] Solaris processorcount fact - what to do

2012-12-10 Thread Alex Harvey
Hi all, This follows discussion on puppet users with Andrew Beresford https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=&pli=1#!topic/puppet-users/rOj9OszhlQM I was hoping to get more input from the community; now trying puppet developers for some advice. Summary of discussion is we've found the pro