On 2013-07-13 20:26, Alessandro Franceschi wrote:
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.
You don't have to push all at once. I think the resource_ensure pattern
seems to be well accepted, even if some details might still require more
hashing out/experimenting.

Establishing the discussion at the "source" (pardon the pun) will also
help to get the broadest exposure to the topic.

Regards, David

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


Related Discussions

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



site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase