On Jan 29, 2010, at 11:42 PM, James Turnbull wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 30/01/10 6:08 PM, Luke Kanies wrote:
I generally agree with Jesse that it's heinous that we're using this
type of solution, but the existing code is equally heinous.
I'm comfortable with this change, albeit with the goal of refactoring
more thoroughly at some later date.
Or is it worth taking the intent of your patch and spending a bit
more
time on the code so it provides the needed functionality while being
more maintainable in the long term?
We keep saying at "some later date" and digging ourselves further
and further into monkey patches.
How about we bite the bullet and do a hard and fast refactor -
starting with these facts and releasing a 1.6.0?
Hmm. I'm a bit up in the air on this. Whomever takes this refactor
on will be doing a significant memory swap, and it's likely to be a
refactor of both the facts and Facter itself (to provide whatever
necessary infrastructure for this kind of data sharing).
Note that at this point it's a question of working on the features for
rowlf or refactoring facter, and I'm not convinced that facter is the
bigger win. I'll check around internally, though, and see what we see.
--
Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Kanies -|- http://reductivelabs.com -|- +1(615)594-8199
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet
Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.
