> 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.
When Jesse brought this up last week I was ambivalent, leaning towards let-it-lay but open to persuasion if there was a win to be had. It's not that I'm not in favor of paying off technical debt, just that we have so much of it relative to our bandwidth that we need to be careful we don't try to do everything and wind up doing nothing. -- Markus -- 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.
