On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Eric Sorenson wrote:
> Was this discussion off-list? I don't see any follow-ups on puppet-dev to
> Chris' original post.
Ah, yes. Evidently it was. Sorry about that.
-Jeff
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet D
Sorry about that--sent the e-mail to two different lists, one internal to
puppet. There were a couple of responses there, and the general consensus
seems to be:
1) It should not cause too many waves to disallow faces from defining
command-line options with the same names as built-in puppet option
Was this discussion off-list? I don't see any follow-ups on puppet-dev to
Chris' original post.
On Monday, April 16, 2012 2:15:12 PM UTC-7, Jeff McCune wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Jeff Weiss
> wrote:
> >
> > Bump. Any further input on this?
>
> Nope, Eric, James and R.I. address
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Jeff Weiss wrote:
>
> Bump. Any further input on this?
Nope, Eric, James and R.I. addressed my perspective on this.
Ideally I'd like a much more easy to use way for face authors to
define their own settings and arguments, but that's likely a separate
issue to thi
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Chris Price wrote:
> Howdy folks... in the spirit of using this list for things other than
> github spam:
>
> I have another topic that I'd like to get feedback on with regards to
> Puppet's settings management. (I know, you've all been eagerly awaiting
> the nex
Howdy folks... in the spirit of using this list for things other than
github spam:
I have another topic that I'd like to get feedback on with regards to
Puppet's settings management. (I know, you've all been eagerly awaiting
the next installment in this saga!)
Currently there is no mechanism in
