On Aug 28, 2013, at 9:05 AM, Ryan Coleman <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 8:04 AM, Henrik Lindberg < [email protected]> wrote: > Questions > ========= > * Do you think it is of value to have a "R3" language revision in Puppet 4? > Would the language changes correspond to major.minor revisions in Puppet? If so, keep in mind that very soon, module authors will be able to express Puppet version support in module metadata which would be available to other tools in addition to Forge. Failing that, I'd welcome the addition of a new key/value in the module metadata to cover the language revision expression. Feel free to mail me off-list for more details on module metadata. > * Is it meaningful to have major.minor revisions, or is a single number > progression enough? > * Is the ability to allow different version per module overkill? (The > alternative is to fail if a module is not compliant with the stated runtime > language revision, or yet another alternative is to just try to use it and > fail - leaving the language rev dependency to be resolved when adding > modules. > * How should we handle "multi version compatible/conditional" modules? > For simplicity sake, why not keep the language version expression at the module level and not allow one class in a module to use R3 and a second class to use R6. This strikes me as complex without much benefit. The module level should be granular enough IMO. I agree wholeheartedly - we should never ship a release of Puppet that supports more than one language version, we should just tell our users whether a given module has stated incompatibilities with the current version. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
