On Sep 23, 2013, at 4:46 PM, John Bollinger <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sunday, September 22, 2013 5:22:10 PM UTC-5, Luke Kanies wrote: > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 11:35 AM, John Bollinger > <[email protected]<javascript:>> > wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 1:36:34 PM UTC-5, Luke Kanies wrote: > > If I'm right, then the choices are: >> >> * Rather than risk warning people about things that aren't actually >> problems, let users continue to struggle with ordering >> >> * Risk erroneous warnings and people sometimes having to add irrelevant >> containments in order for the vast majority of users to have a better >> experience >> >> If I'm wrong, of course, then the whole thing is pointless. But that's >> the trade off I'm thinking. >> >> > > So what's wrong with defaulting to the latter, and allowing users to opt > for the former? The ability to silence unwanted warnings is a highly > desirable feature, especially in shops where warnings are considered errors. > > > Sure. I'd even go so far as to say we should maybe only add the warnings > in a strict mode, or have a special mode that throws more warnings. > > It's clear that we aren't going to reach an agreement about whether it's a good idea to strive for full containment (subject to the exceptions we already discussed), much less whether doing so should be considered a best practice. We have differing objectives, which I hope you and the rest of the PL team will bear in mind going forward. On the other hand, it seems like we have no real disagreement about the warnings themselves. As for a strict / high-warnings mode, that sounds good to me. As much as it is useful to be able to silence unwanted warnings, it is also useful to be able to ask for extreme nitpick mode to troubleshoot problems, or for the forward thinking among us, to try to avoid problems in the first place. Thanks for your patience. Do we have agreement that it's a good idea to find a way to encourage users to provide more dependencies, and that it would be good if we could somehow detect when a dependency is likely to be missing? If we can agree on that, then maybe we can find a mechanism (which may or may not involve containment) we can agree on. If we can't agree on that, then yeah, we're not going to agree. :) -- 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.
