On 3/17/2010 5:25 AM, Dan Bode wrote:
Hi All,
I have been working on a type/provider for sudoers and would appreciate
any feedback.
It can be found at:
http://github.com/bodepd/puppet-sudo
There are some slight limitations documented in the README.
Plenty of examples in the tests directory
I can't see any way at all the changes in #2327 could cause a memory leak.
me neither.
Are you saying that it leaks with those changes, and doesn't without them?
That would be very odd but, if true, very interesting.
Not directly. I'm saying that puppet leaks with all the patches
applied
On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 10:57 +0100, Peter Meier wrote:
I can't see any way at all the changes in #2327 could cause a memory leak.
me neither.
Are you saying that it leaks with those changes, and doesn't without them?
That would be very odd but, if true, very interesting.
Not directly.
I could observe that it even leaks in standalone mode up to 800M of
memory just for that litlle augeas recipe.
And it does not leak with 0.25.4.
This is why I'm suspecting these augeas changes to be the cause of the
problem. But I'm only suspecting them.
Does it leak if you remove all the
This edition contains more code and fails fewer tests then the previous
ones, thought it still fails over two hundred at the head. Today I'm going
to be working on fixing test failures (by fixing the code or the test, as
needed) and Jesse's finishing up the REST conversions.
Building testing
On 16/03/10 19:55, Brice Figureau wrote:
On 15/03/10 21:44, Luke Kanies wrote:
On Mar 15, 2010, at 2:06 AM, Brice Figureau wrote:
On Sun, 2010-03-14 at 15:49 -0700, Luke Kanies wrote:
On Mar 14, 2010, at 1:42 AM, Brice Figureau wrote:
[snipped]
Frankly I'd prefer we fix the issue in 0.25.x
With recursive file resources, many change events can be generated.
The method used to find the good ones is pretty inefficient allocating
arrays and/or appending to arrays which is a slow operation.
This patch rewrite the code to never append or allocate an array if
there is no matching edge, or
On 17/03/10 20:09, Brice Figureau wrote:
On 16/03/10 19:55, Brice Figureau wrote:
On 15/03/10 21:44, Luke Kanies wrote:
On Mar 15, 2010, at 2:06 AM, Brice Figureau wrote:
On Sun, 2010-03-14 at 15:49 -0700, Luke Kanies wrote:
On Mar 14, 2010, at 1:42 AM, Brice Figureau wrote:
[snipped]
On Mar 16, 2010, at 4:07 AM, David Schmitt wrote:
[crossposting to puppet-dev, please trim follow-ups appropriately]
On 3/16/2010 11:52 AM, Jesús Couto wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Michael DeHaan
mich...@reductivelabs.com mailto:mich...@reductivelabs.com wrote:
that are
Tentative +1
I want to convince myself of its correctness in an edge case or two (it
probably is) but other than that it looks great.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Puppet Developers group.
To post to this group, send email to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I agree with David.
Also:
- - I would make the defined attributes completely authoritative. If I'm
setting up sudoers, I want to define the entire file from top to bottom,
I specifically don't want to have cruft left around. This could perhaps
be an
On Mar 17, 2010, at 1:51 AM, David Schmitt wrote:
On 3/17/2010 5:25 AM, Dan Bode wrote:
Hi All,
I have been working on a type/provider for sudoers and would
appreciate
any feedback.
It can be found at:
http://github.com/bodepd/puppet-sudo
There are some slight limitations documented in
On Mar 17, 2010, at 8:04 AM, Markus Roberts wrote:
is edition contains more code and fails fewer tests then the
previous ones, thought it still fails over two hundred at the head.
Today I'm going to be working on fixing test failures (by fixing the
code or the test, as needed) and Jesse's
You've got a spare 'put's in there, but otherwise, +1.
Do you think this might be just the wrong way of doing this matching
overall? My instincts around graphs seem to be particularly horrible,
so there's probably a much better way to do this.
On Mar 17, 2010, at 12:14 PM, Brice Figureau
On Mar 17, 2010, at 12:27 PM, Brice Figureau wrote:
On 17/03/10 20:09, Brice Figureau wrote:
On 16/03/10 19:55, Brice Figureau wrote:
On 15/03/10 21:44, Luke Kanies wrote:
On Mar 15, 2010, at 2:06 AM, Brice Figureau wrote:
On Sun, 2010-03-14 at 15:49 -0700, Luke Kanies wrote:
On Mar 14,
On Mar 17, 2010, at 3:03 PM, Markus Roberts wrote:
Tentative +1
I want to convince myself of its correctness in an edge case or two
(it probably is) but other than that it looks great.
IMO, you're the best positioned (because you actually understand
graphs) to see whether my original
On Mar 17, 2010, at 5:26 PM, Trevor Vaughan wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I agree with David.
Also:
- - I would make the defined attributes completely authoritative. If
I'm
setting up sudoers, I want to define the entire file from top to
bottom,
I specifically
Second, it's pretty clear that a lot of the failures are my fault - each of
my three primary branches seems to cause 10+ new errors. What's the best
plan to work on these? Rebase them on current master and just fix
everything I can? Or should we make a new testfix branch fixes most of
the
On Mar 17, 2010, at 6:25 PM, Markus Roberts wrote:
Second, it's pretty clear that a lot of the failures are my fault -
each of my three primary branches seems to cause 10+ new errors.
What's the best plan to work on these? Rebase them on current
master and just fix everything I can?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Though it's a massive PITA, would anyone be up to trying a comparison
with RGL?
I've had good luck with it and, in theory, it's as optimized as you can
get in Ruby.
Trevor
- --
Trevor Vaughan
Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc.
email:
20 matches
Mail list logo
