On 9 March 2011 16:55, James Turnbull ja...@puppetlabs.com wrote:
Paul Nasrat wrote:
On 8 March 2011 17:23, James Turnbull ja...@puppetlabs.com wrote:
Paul Nasrat wrote:
+1 been pending for too long
Was that a +1 on patches 2 and 3 in that series also? I largely rewrote
the whole fact.
Paul Nasrat wrote:
On 9 March 2011 16:55, James Turnbull ja...@puppetlabs.com wrote:
Paul Nasrat wrote:
On 8 March 2011 17:23, James Turnbull ja...@puppetlabs.com wrote:
Paul Nasrat wrote:
+1 been pending for too long
Was that a +1 on patches 2 and 3 in that series also? I largely rewrote
On 8 March 2011 17:23, James Turnbull ja...@puppetlabs.com wrote:
Paul Nasrat wrote:
+1 been pending for too long
Was that a +1 on patches 2 and 3 in that series also? I largely rewrote
the whole fact.
Just on this, I need to review the arp fact in more depth. I think the
basic idea for the
Paul Nasrat wrote:
On 8 March 2011 17:23, James Turnbull ja...@puppetlabs.com wrote:
Paul Nasrat wrote:
+1 been pending for too long
Was that a +1 on patches 2 and 3 in that series also? I largely rewrote
the whole fact.
Just on this, I need to review the arp fact in more depth. I think
From: Paul Nasrat pnas...@googlemail.com
The EC2 fact is completely broken at the moment:
* Timeout::Error isn't caught by rescue (due to how it inherits)
* The issue of wrong open semantics outlined here, this is causing hidden
immediate failure
* The fact is going to cause a 2 second wait to
+1 been pending for too long
On 8 March 2011 10:28, James Turnbull ja...@lovedthanlost.net wrote:
From: Paul Nasrat pnas...@googlemail.com
The EC2 fact is completely broken at the moment:
* Timeout::Error isn't caught by rescue (due to how it inherits)
* The issue of wrong open semantics
Paul Nasrat wrote:
+1 been pending for too long
Was that a +1 on patches 2 and 3 in that series also? I largely rewrote
the whole fact.
James
--
James Turnbull
Puppet Labs
1-503-734-8571
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Puppet Developers group.
