On 10 June 2011 02:50, Jacob Helwig <ja...@puppetlabs.com> wrote: > On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 18:42:54 -0700, Nigel Kersten wrote: > > > > https://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/7697 > > > > One problem people producing modules that make use of stages are hitting > is > > that it's difficult to create something reusable that integrates > seamlessly > > into existing setups. > > > > This feature request is to add several more implicit stages to Puppet so > we > > have: > > > > bootstrap > > pre > > main > > post > > > > existing by default, making it easier for authors to specify stages in > their > > modules. > > > > Thoughts? > > >
Seems like a very good idea to me. What about these stages relating to being able regenerate facts after a stage possibly? A thread the other day about nagios configs meant delivering a new fact file and then going back on the next run to retrieve the facts. I think this required two runs, can't swear to it right now though, but a formal re-evaluation of facts after a bootstrap could be good. You could be real confusing and have a proper "POST" section too, right at the start, BIOS style. Not to be confused with the "post" stage of course! ;-) The answer to question "Which comes first, 'bootstrap' or 'pre'?" seems > awfully ambiguous from just the names. > I would see that a bootstrap stage would be for modules fundamental to puppet itself, e.g. if puppet.conf is updated. And pre would be normal run stuff that just needs to happen early on in the run itself. What's the reason for separating it out? For the reasons he already described... Thanks Chris -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
