On 18 Feb 2011, at 10:32 AM, Daniel Pittman wrote: > I think I am in general agreement with this - or, at least, something that > can't be disstinguished from this externally. However, to be sure I > understand your proposal correctly: > > The goal is that dependencies of an ancestor directory are implicitly added > to a directory node, and nothing more? > > You do not expect this to implicitly create directories on disk, or anything > that would be externally observable, just to influence dependency execution > order?
Correct on all counts. -- Ian Ward Comfort <[email protected]> Systems Team Lead, Academic Computing Services, Stanford University -- 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.
