On Saturday, July 13, 2013 2:47:36 PM UTC+2, Ashley Penney wrote:
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 6:16 AM, Alessandro Franceschi <a...@lab42.it<javascript:>
I insist on the question since I've not had answers previously:
Any hope the redesign of the PuppetLabs modules will consider the
suggested standards discussed here:
I know you're finding the lack of answer from us frustrating and I can
promise we're not trying to ignore it or trivialize the issue. From our
perspective it's just the two of us and we're just trying to find our feet
and handle the enormous PR backlog and get the modules into some kind of
shape. I'm not against any of those parameter names and I'll accept PRs to
deprecate all the existing names and replace them with alternatives but
it's just a big chunk of work that we haven't been able to schedule yet.

So from my personal point of view I am trying to use those parameter names
as much as possible, as well as that general class outline, in the context
of transforming existing modules where I can't just start over. We haven't
reached the point where we're doing much from scratch so these kinds of
design things haven't come up as we're trying to find ways to work within
what we got!
So there's a totally unofficial answer, but I think hunner is generally on
the same page as me. We see the need for a standardized list of parameter
names/layout that is recommended, and we're in favor of moving towards it.

Alessandro, here's a proposal that might help -
https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppet/pull/1718 is a PR about improving
the skeleton that module generate creates. It would be awesome to see if
we can get electrical and you to work together to put together a skeleton
that a/ reflects the class layout in that doc (probably just
install,config,service and init as a skeleton) as well as a STANDARDS.md or
GUIDELINES.md document that includes all those parameters. That way the
information would be right there whenever a user creates a module.
Wow, that's what I call a direct approach, pushing a PR directly on puppet
code to set "standards de facto"... wonder what some persons on this list
would say about that (John?).
I still think that trying to find a shared agreement on naming standards is
a step to do before pushing the whole default layout of puppet module
Anyway I'll gladly accept your invitation to prepare a STANDARDS.md and a
module skeleton PR , but, really , I think some (not so many actually)
naming patterns still need discussion (package or package_name?) as in some
cases I've deliberately introduced them (dependency_class? options_hash?
user_class? install_*? monitor_* ? firewall_*?... ) and even if they make a
lot of sense for me it might not be the same for others.

It would go a huge way towards getting these adopted I think if you
integrated that document directly into the module skeleton. It would make
it easy for busy people like me juggling modules to constantly refer to the
document as I'd have copies of it all over the place. :)
Any place suggested by PuppetLabs on where to define modules standards is
ok for me.
If the discussion can be done directly on the relevant PR, it's ok for me

Thank you for the reply,

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts

Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 1 of 2 | next ›
Discussion Overview
grouppuppet-users @
postedJul 13, '13 at 6:26p
activeJul 15, '13 at 8:47a



site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase