For what it's worth, we on the puppetlabs open-source team are highly motivated to work with and fix bugs for people who are willing to beta-test the RCs of 3.0 - especially if it's something you're headed to production with. On the flip side, if there's something that doesn't work for you in 2.7, it's going to get prioritized below anybody else's 3.0 bugs.
But I totally understand if the effort/reward equation doesn't work out for you. -=Eric On Thursday, August 30, 2012 5:31:34 AM UTC-7, Jason Antman wrote: > > I think that's my new theory. For now, I think I'll be building and > testing a 2.7.(18|19) master and clients. The master will be > bootstrappable though puppet itself (I hope...). Assuming all goes well, > when I'm ready to roll out I'll re-assess the situation with 3.0 and > consider, if things look good, starting the build/test/validate loop > with 3.0. > > Thanks for all the input. > -Jason > > On 08/29/2012 07:59 PM, Peter Brown wrote: > > From what I have seen there is a big difference between 2.6+ and 3.0+. > > I would be setting up a completely separate environment with 2.7 to > > test if your code works. > > 2.7 apparently let you know which things will stop working in 3.0 so > > it will be a better idea to use that in the dev environment and iron > > out the obvious things first and then switch to 3.0+ > > There will likely be a bunch of things you will need to fix with your > > code before you switch your environment to 3.0 so by the time it's > > "stable" enough you will have your code ported and ready to roll out. > > > > I am currently running 2.7+ and plan on setting up my dev environment > > to 3.0 once i finish a few more important modules i need to write for > > a big project. (yes i write most of my modules from scratch) > > > > Just my opinion but it seems like the best way to make sure everything > > works and avoid breaking your production environment and spending way > > too long fixing it. > > Hope that helps. > > > > Pete. > > > > On 30 August 2012 09:16, John Warburton<jwarb...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > wrote: > >> > >> On 30 August 2012 00:52, Jason Antman<ja...@jasonantman.com<javascript:>> > wrote: > >>> For anyone in the know, given this situation, would you recommend > building > >>> on puppet 2.7.18, or trying to draw things out as much as possible and > wait > >>> for a stable 3.x release? Does anyone have any general idea of when > one > >>> might be forthcoming (weeks? months? next year?) > >>> > >> I'm in a similar position with 1000 hosts, 100 odd modules, 2K+ > resources > >> managed by puppet on 2.6.x. Given the deprecation warnings, and changes > in > >> 2.7, then 3.x, I'm using 2.7 both as a stepping stone to 3 (code > cleanup) > >> and added functionality (puppet DB) > >> > >> Seeing how 2.7 wasn't suitable *for me* until 2.7.10 due to some > specific > >> bugs, I think you should move to 2.7 unless you have a simple setup and > >> prepared to wait for 3 > >> > >> > >> John > >> > >> -- > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > >> "Puppet Users" group. > >> To post to this group, send email to > >> puppet...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>. > > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> puppet-users...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > >> For more options, visit this group at > >> http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/Gcj9G8_PN5gJ. 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.
