On Feb 1, 2010, at 8:00 PM, James Turnbull wrote:
On 2 February 2010 12:50, Ohad Levy <[email protected]> wrote:
+1 for fixing the problem now, and refactoring facter after rowlf.
Sure - if that's the priority I agree Rowlf is more important. The
problem, to me, is we've repeatedly made that call and now haven't had
a Facter release for quite some time.
We've also said quite a lot lately that a key input to Puppet's future
direction is richness of data and the ability to do more with the data
available to Puppet. I see Facter as critical to that - perhaps not
immediately as critical as Rowlf but up there. Without rich data
output from Facter I think we'll find exploiting future directions
potentially problematic.
I agree.
Facter is fortunately a small code base, so it should be relatively
easy to refactor, and I would like to do so with the following foci:
* Fix outstanding issues like the above
* Create a new shadowfacter-style programming interface
* Support qualified facts (e.g., disk::sd1 or operatingsystem::release)
* Support both arrays and hashes as values
None of those are complicated, so I expect my team will have a short
code sprint and get it done. But again, it'll be after rowlf.
--
It is a very sad thing that nowadays there is so little useless
information. -- Oscar Wilde
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
