Michael DeHaan <[email protected]> writes:
>> I've read through it once and will want to go through it again with
>> more coffee in me, but as a proof-of-concept I'd give it a +1 and it
>> appears to be pretty much in line with our discussion. We probably
>> want to either do some rescue/ensure cleanup in replace_file (in case
>> they raise an exception in the block) but it's still a net improvement
>> (leaving clutter rather than corrupting the files).
>
> I've just reviewed this also ... I have a few tweaks which I'm currently
> testing that I hope to incorporate on top of your patch (that may make it a
> little more robust), though in general I'll say it looks pretty good.
> Expect something on this a little later.
Ah, great, actual testing. How many embarrassing mistakes did I litter the
code with through writing it without any tests at all?
Anyway, I look forward to seeing your comments and adjustments; I am very
curious which areas you adjusted to make it more robust — I guess robust
against Ruby errors or system call faults, probably?
Daniel
I really should just wait to see the diff. :)
--
✣ Daniel Pittman ✉ [email protected] ☎ +61 401 155 707
♽ made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons
--
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.
