On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Erik Dalén <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tuesday 13 November 2012 at 00:59, Andy Parker wrote: >> At the moment Proposal 4 is looking the most promising. It is to pretty much >> undo the changes for #2935 (which added run_mode) and change to a >> configuration system such that each subcommand has a section in the >> configuration file. This means that we can statically know what part of the >> configuration file to use for any given subcommand without first having to >> load any code first. >> >> I've hacked (and hacked is really the right word) together some changes that >> start doing this on a branch in my repo. >> https://github.com/zaphod42/puppet/tree/spike/master/subcommands-as-conf-sections >> >> Any changes around this could have wide ranging impact and so we really need >> to make sure we get this right. Can anyone think of what doing this would >> horribly break? Other solutions that would achieve similar results, but >> might work better? > > Wouldn't doing this would require configuration changes in some use cases? > For example I have puppet masters that are clients to other puppet masters > with a different CA, so in the master section I have a different ssldir. With > this change I would have to copy that to a "cert" and "ca" section as well. > > I'm kind of okay with doing that, but it is definitely not a backwards > compatible change, so for puppet 4.0? :)
Yes, Erik is right about that. The CA, apply, and a few other commands would no longer pick up the same configuration they do today. -- Daniel Pittman ⎋ Puppet Labs Developer – http://puppetlabs.com ♲ 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.
