On Friday, March 28, 2014 12:46:41 PM UTC-5, Ken Barber wrote: > > Hey all, > > TL;DR: We're adding support to environments to PuppetDB but have a > small migration hassle we wanted some community opinion on. If you're > interested in PuppetDB and environments read on. > > [...] > > Anyway - I'm looking for some feedback for these two alternate > solutions (or a third more whacky solution - whatever :-). The first > one is obviously easiest and avoids leaving behind a transient > solution, the second we think solves this concern to some extent (at > least we think so). > > Any feedback or opinion on this would be much appreciated. > >
As a matter of general principles, I am inclined to think that it is better to tell the truth to your software than to lie. Your software is less likely to do unexpected things that way, and people are less likely to be confused. As that applies to the PuppetDB situation, it means PuppetDB should not consider or report machines as being in a given environment when it's uncertain whether that's true. I would thus recommend the second alternative, with it's provision for recording that the environment is unknown. Whatever problems may attend that approach, it's a steadier base to build on. In this case, it also preserves information that otherwise would be lost, to wit: for which nodes the environment is affirmatively known, as opposed to guessed / defaulted. John -- 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 puppet-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-dev/078ee482-1771-482d-89f4-8090e7dc7fb7%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
