It's possible that I'm not understanding your suggestion, but: > Random idea. If stages themselves worked via tags instead of adding > something to the graph (and creating many-to-many dependencies), would > that be more functional?
It would eliminate the main point of stages though; the whole point of stages is to constrain the shape of the graph, which tags don't. > If you could use the tag() function to apply a tag to the class as > normal, then define if that tag comes before or after the 'main' tag > or any other arbitrary tag, then we could have cross-stage > dependencies (currently broken with stages) and use a syntax that's > already built in. Except there's presently no concept of ordering with regards to tags at all, and that would be a pretty big change. Also, what do you mean about cross-stage dependencies being broken? > Perhaps this would also circumvent the performance > problems associated with large stages. The performance issues are independent of this. -- 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.
