Skip to content

Ticket/2.7.x/5362#369

Closed
nanliu wants to merge 1 commit intopuppetlabs:2.7.xfrom
nanliu:ticket/2.7.x/5362
Closed

Ticket/2.7.x/5362#369
nanliu wants to merge 1 commit intopuppetlabs:2.7.xfrom
nanliu:ticket/2.7.x/5362

Conversation

@nanliu
Copy link
Contributor

@nanliu nanliu commented Jan 21, 2012

This doesn't resolve the underlying issue, but it sets path=false if the
user provide a server setting for filebucket, so users no longer need
to use this work around:

filebucket { 'remote':
  server => 'puppet',
  path => false, #no longer required.
}

The documentation on the type have been updated, but there are other
places where this should also be updated.

This doesn't resolve the underlying issue, but it sets path=false if the
user provide a server setting for filebucket, so users no longer need
to use this work around:

    filebucket { 'remote':
      server => 'puppet',
      path => false, #no longer required.
    }

The documentation on the type have been updated, but there are other
places where this should also be updated.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hey. That change looks wrong to me, for production code.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should I keep it as server => puppet? I was just showing an example and false is not necessary.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That seems like a better default, especially given we use that as our default server name. :)

@slippycheeze
Copy link
Contributor

I would generally prefer to get to the underlying problem, not work around it like this. Did you identify that fixing the core of the issue was a substantially bigger, or more risky, effort than this targetted change?

@nanliu
Copy link
Contributor Author

nanliu commented Jan 22, 2012

Fixing the underlying problem requires checking the file resource type behavior which is beyond what I intended for a quick hack-a-thon pull request.

@slippycheeze
Copy link
Contributor

Sure. I can appreciate that, but I am not going to accept the change because of it without that background checking. Do you think you can do that? If not, I am going to have to reject the change, which I really don't want to do. I just want to make sure we are not rearranging deck chairs while the iceberg looms...

hlindberg pushed a commit to hlindberg/puppet that referenced this pull request Oct 16, 2014
Update ordering example per DOC-660.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants