On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 4:27:41 PM UTC+2, pablo.f...@cscs.ch wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 23/06/14 19:15, Alessandro Franceschi wrote:
>
> As a side note I'm a bit perplex about the proliferation of parameters in
> classes or defines in order to match single application specific
> configuration e
On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 4:20:33 PM UTC+2, Felix.Frank wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> On 06/24/2014 03:48 PM, jcbollinger wrote:
> >
> > I understand the point, but at the same time I find it harmful also
> > to have hundreds of modules, that are published on the forge but
> > work onl
On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 3:48:17 PM UTC+2, jcbollinger wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, June 23, 2014 10:34:00 AM UTC-5, Alessandro Franceschi wrote:
>>
>> First of all, let me thank you, John, for replying to this post and
>> giving a sense to the discussion.
>> At times I wonder if PuppetLabs' guys
Hi,
On 23/06/14 19:15, Alessandro Franceschi wrote:
> As a side note I'm a bit perplex about the proliferation of parameters
> in classes or defines in order to match single application specific
> configuration entries.
> When I look at this, for example:
> https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppetlabs
Hi guys,
On 06/24/2014 03:48 PM, jcbollinger wrote:
>
> I understand the point, but at the same time I find it harmful also
> to have hundreds of modules, that are published on the forge but
> work only for a specific case and are practically useless for others.
>
>
>
> I disagree.
On Monday, June 23, 2014 10:52:48 AM UTC-5, Alessandro Franceschi wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, June 20, 2014 8:01:49 PM UTC+2, Trevor Vaughan wrote:
>>
>> +1 to everything that John has said.
>>
>> While many Forge modules are not useful to me out of the box, I have had
>> good luck modifying them
On Monday, June 23, 2014 10:34:00 AM UTC-5, Alessandro Franceschi wrote:
>
> First of all, let me thank you, John, for replying to this post and giving
> a sense to the discussion.
> At times I wonder if PuppetLabs' guys read the forum and, if they do, why
> they don't express an opinion on the
On Monday, June 23, 2014 6:49:00 PM UTC+2, pablo.f...@cscs.ch wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I think you (example42) hit the nail in the head in the "rethinking
> modules part 1" with one tiny exception... but that error was multiplied
> by x100 in the second part of your dissertation.
>
> The exception
Hi,
I think you (example42) hit the nail in the head in the "rethinking
modules part 1" with one tiny exception... but that error was multiplied
by x100 in the second part of your dissertation.
The exception I am talking about is the desirability to pass a template
as a parameter: I agree you sho
On Friday, June 20, 2014 8:01:49 PM UTC+2, Trevor Vaughan wrote:
>
> +1 to everything that John has said.
>
> While many Forge modules are not useful to me out of the box, I have had
> good luck modifying them to meet my needs at any given time.
>
Well, in my very personal opinion, if someone t
First of all, let me thank you, John, for replying to this post and giving
a sense to the discussion.
At times I wonder if PuppetLabs' guys read the forum and, if they do, why
they don't express an opinion on these matters.
I might be obsessive about modules, but I think that it's here where we
+1 to everything that John has said.
While many Forge modules are not useful to me out of the box, I have had
good luck modifying them to meet my needs at any given time.
I've also been able to learn new ways of doing things (and not doing
things) due to the willingness of people to share.
I do
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 11:09:22 AM UTC-5, Alessandro Franceschi wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> I've written a blog post with my opinions on the current modules ecosystem:
> http://www.example42.com/2014/05/31/rethinking-modules-part-1/
>
> The post talks about :
> What are the reusability features a mo
13 matches
Mail list logo
