Meet up following training, open to all, we'll meet at The Green Man
pub again, I get off about 18h so probably there about 18:30 but feel
free to get there earlier if the class finishes up.
Green Man
36 Riding Hood St
London
W1W 7EP
http://www.thegreenmanw1.co.uk/
It's 4 mins by google maps
I'll be there from about 7pm I imagine, unless I can get out of work early.
On 29 Mar 2010, at 12:33, Paul Nasrat wrote:
Meet up following training, open to all, we'll meet at The Green Man
pub again, I get off about 18h so probably there about 18:30 but feel
free to get there earlier if the
So given all of the above, I still have a few questions.
1) If I'm not delegating :groups= and instead doing the logic in the
call itself, should I do the same thing for :groups as well for the
sake of symmetry?
2) If we're trying to avoid Facter calls unless necessary, should I
stop doing the
On Mar 29, 2010, at 7:53 AM, Nigel Kersten wrote:
So given all of the above, I still have a few questions.
1) If I'm not delegating :groups= and instead doing the logic in the
call itself, should I do the same thing for :groups as well for the
sake of symmetry?
No, I don't think this really
This edition focused on cleaning up the sequence as a whole, since the
head of testing had gotten unusably buggy again. The process was
complicated by a number of test indeterminacies that had crept in
(Jesse did a great job tracking down #3148, BTW) and we didn't get
everything, but head should
I know there are no tests here, I'm just unsure where they should go?
firstslip:puppet nigelk$ grep -ri suid spec/
spec/integration/bin/puppetmasterd.rb:args += --user %s %
Puppet::Util::SUIDManager.uid
spec/integration/bin/puppetmasterd.rb:args += --group %s %
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Nigel Kersten nig...@google.com wrote:
Signed-off-by: Nigel Kersten nig...@google.com
---
lib/puppet/util/suidmanager.rb | 29 +++--
1 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/puppet/util/suidmanager.rb
+1
Much better.
On Mar 29, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Nigel Kersten wrote:
Signed-off-by: Nigel Kersten nig...@google.com
---
lib/puppet/util/suidmanager.rb | 29 +++--
1 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/puppet/util/suidmanager.rb
On Mar 29, 2010, at 10:58 AM, Nigel Kersten wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Luke Kanies l...@puppetlabs.com
wrote:
+1
Much better.
You don't want tests? :)
Really, this is the kind of ridiculousness that you better test the
crap out of before you go submitting code for, and
Hi,
I started working again on #3373:
http://projects.reductivelabs.com/issues/3373
I'd like to discuss here how to achieve the file client streaming (ie
never fully buffer the file content).
What makes thing real complex is that the response is valid only in the
block of the network request:
Fixes #3445.
---
lib/facter/util/virtual.rb |1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/facter/util/virtual.rb b/lib/facter/util/virtual.rb
index 0c3fb73..2e085f1 100644
--- a/lib/facter/util/virtual.rb
+++ b/lib/facter/util/virtual.rb
@@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ module
This patch fixes handling of Solaris branded zones, i.e. Solaris 8 and Solaris 9
zones, installed on Solaris 10 global zone. See the ticket for further details.
Signed-off-by: Pavol Dilung pavol.dil...@gmail.com
---
lib/facter/util/virtual.rb |1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0
On Mar 29, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Roy Nielsen wrote:
Hello,
Is it possible for me to create a custom module/lib/puppet/
provider/package.rb - to override what's in the rubypath/puppet/
provider/package.rb?
my issue: http://projects.reductivelabs.com/issues/3422
We want to check if a process
This is the same as the first patch, right?
You've tested this behaviour, right? Are there tests for the existing
method?
On Mar 29, 2010, at 2:00 PM, Pavol Dilung wrote:
This patch fixes handling of Solaris branded zones, i.e. Solaris 8
and Solaris 9
zones, installed on Solaris 10
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Luke Kanies l...@puppetlabs.com wrote:
On Mar 29, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Roy Nielsen wrote:
Hello,
Is it possible for me to create a custom
module/lib/puppet/provider/package.rb - to override what's in the
rubypath/puppet/provider/package.rb?
my issue:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 7:27 PM, amrset amr...@gmail.com wrote:
Nigel Kersten wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Luke Kanies l...@puppetlabs.com wrote:
On Mar 29, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Roy Nielsen wrote:
Hello,
Is it possible for me to create a custom
Nigel Kersten wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 7:27 PM, amrset amr...@gmail.com wrote:
Nigel Kersten wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Luke Kanies l...@puppetlabs.com wrote:
On Mar 29, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Roy Nielsen wrote:
Hello,
Is it possible for me to create a custom
Hi,
while playing around with 0.25.4 on a master with chained CA setup, I think
I've hit a related issue, just wondering if this fixes it or should I open a
new bug.
basically, the master(!) regenerated its own certificate (according to
certificate method) and rewrote the certs/ca.pem.
I'm
Just for a bit of extra info on this reversion:
Basically, this patch never quite worked, actually, and rather than
fixing it -- thus changing behaviour considerably in 0.25.5 -- we're
reverting it and fixing it for realz in master. That fix will take
the form of removing all of the old
ok, hitting a wall on the first step:
a little bit background:
MasterA is head CA
MasterB is a sub CA of MasterA
both masters are 0.25.4
MasterA is a normal puppetmaster setup with a normal CA
a clean install of MasterB, running puppetd for the first time and fetch a
certificate from MasterA
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Luke Kanies l...@puppetlabs.com wrote:
I think I see what's happening - it must be automatically expiring the cert
because the ssl key is changing, or something like that. I just looked in
the code and I don't see what's actually triggering that, but the
On Mar 29, 2010, at 9:22 PM, Ohad Levy wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Luke Kanies l...@puppetlabs.com
wrote:
I think I see what's happening - it must be automatically expiring
the cert because the ssl key is changing, or something like that. I
just looked in the code and I
Let me read through the emails and the code and see for sure, but off
the top of my head I think yes, this was part of #2890 and should be
reverted by #3450.
-- Markus
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Puppet Developers group.
To post to this group,
I think I see what's happening - it must be automatically expiring the
cert because the ssl key is changing, or something like that. I just
looked
in the code and I don't see what's actually triggering that, but the
'expiring the certificate cache of...' seems to indicate that that is
...and you are just the kind of people want to hire.
http://www.puppetlabs.com/company/jobs/
Cheers,
Teyo
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Puppet Developers group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from
25 matches
Mail list logo
