On Jul 12, 2012, at 2:26 PM, jcbollinger wrote: > I would avoid that variation on this approach if at all possible. You would > sidestep multiple pitfalls if you could determine up front, based on node > name and facts, which groups are supposed to be present, instead of > attempting to determine after the fact which were realized. Indeed, you > might even find it convenient to use that information to drive group > realization. > If nothing else, doing so would ensure that users aren't assigned to > secondary groups that don't get realized.
This is what policy as expressed in the puppet manifests does. I don't see how to avoid the unrealized problem here. What's funny is that you are expressing exactly what puppet does today, but it appears you are suggesting that I need to create another data source and mirror the information out of puppet manifests into that for comparison purposes. Huh? I'm a bit baffled by the fairly constant suggestion by people here that I keep spreading out the places where information is stored. The point is to centralize the data, not provide more sources to grow inconsistent with each other. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects. -- 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.
