I really +1 this one.
One rework I think that could be done is how the report can be created
in the configurer or passed in parameter, which I think makes it
error-prone to use or difficult to understand.
On 23/11/10 22:31, Paul Berry wrote:
Puppet apply used to contain code that duplicated the
We added the following zfs properties to the zfs provider
:recordsize, :aclmode, :aclinherit, :primarycache, :secondarycache
Currently zfs users have to chain an exec to the zfs filesystem creation and
the inclusion of these properties would allow puppet to set them natively.
Signed-off-by:
Derek Olsen wrote:
We added the following zfs properties to the zfs provider
+1.
James
--
Puppet Labs - http://www.puppetlabs.com
C: 503-734-8571
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Puppet Developers group.
To post to this group, send email to
This file was never being required, and was inconsistent with the way
SSL is used in the indirector.
Paired-with: Jesse Wolfe je...@puppetlabs.com
Signed-off-by: Paul Berry p...@puppetlabs.com
---
Local-branch: maint/next/remove_dead_monkey_patch
lib/puppet/sslcertificates/monkey_patch.rb |6
On 24/11/10 21:24, Paul Berry wrote:
This file was never being required, and was inconsistent with the way
SSL is used in the indirector.
I might be totally wrong but this file was part of the old ssl xmlrpc
handler (ie pre 0.25).
Does it mean the next version won't compatible with 0.24.x
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Brice Figureau
brice-pup...@daysofwonder.com wrote:
On 24/11/10 21:24, Paul Berry wrote:
This file was never being required, and was inconsistent with the way
SSL is used in the indirector.
I might be totally wrong but this file was part of the old ssl xmlrpc
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Nigel Kersten ni...@puppetlabs.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Brice Figureau
brice-pup...@daysofwonder.com wrote:
On 24/11/10 21:24, Paul Berry wrote:
This file was never being required, and was inconsistent with the way
SSL is used in the
On Nov 24, 2010, at 4:57 PM, Nigel Kersten wrote:
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Brice Figureau
brice-pup...@daysofwonder.com wrote:
On 24/11/10 21:24, Paul Berry wrote:
This file was never being required, and was inconsistent with the way
SSL is used in the indirector.
I might be
Does a true command ship by default on Win32?
If not this will break the tests there. Unittests should be runnable -
please confirm you have a windows box in your CI pipeline by default
and the tests all pass on that platform with this change.
Paul
On Tuesday, November 23, 2010, Paul Berry
