thx guys, i was not aware of this version'ing view in open source.
so i am now trying to use this module now. but i guess i have a very basic
issue:
currently i am running following in a loop for all hosts (and a inner loop for
all commands for a host):
my ($MFSSH) = Net::OpenSSH->new($HOST,
user => $USER,
password => $PASS,
default_stderr_fh => $stderr_fh,
default_stdout_fh => $stdout_fh,
master_opts => [-o => 'StrictHostKeyChecking=no',
-o => 'ConnectTimeout 10'],
);
$EXITCODE = $MFSSH->error;
next if ($EXITCODE ne "0"); #go to next host if ssh fails
foreach $CMD (@MFCMDS){
chomp($CMD);
( @CMDRESULT, $CMDERR ) = $MFSSH->capture("$CMD");
}
how can i use Net::OpenSSH::Parallel this script? i mean i understood creating
a new instance like pssh in the module CPAN page, but not sure how to integrate
it with the script i already have.
thx in advance.
Rajeev
________________________________
From: Shlomi Fish <[email protected]>
To: Paul Johnson <[email protected]>
Cc: Rajeev Prasad <[email protected]>; Perl Beginners <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 1:04 AM
Subject: Re: how good is Net::OpenSSH::Parallel in your experience
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 02:32:58 +0200
Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 04:35:07PM -0700, Rajeev Prasad wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > i am planning to use this module, but its version is 0.11 ! and author says
> > it is beta quality. i am using Net::OpenSSH which is also below ver 1.0
> > but i have had no issues with it so far.
> >
> > does anyone have any good/bad experience with this module?
>
> I don't, but I think you are probbaly reading far too much into both the
> version number and its described status. 0.11 may well mean that the module
> has had 11 releases. Would you consider that good or bad? It depends, I
> suppose.
>
> And beta quality? That *should* mean that the author believes the module is
> complete, functional and working apart from any already noted bugs, and it is
> now ready for further testing in real world situations by real users. That
> seems to be pretty good quality to me.
Indeed. As Eric Raymond notes in:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/homesteading/ar01s13.html
<<<
This rule underlies the fact that open-source software tends to stay in beta
for a long time, and not get even a 1.0 version number until the developers are
very sure it will not hand out a lot of nasty surprises. In the closed-source
world, Version 1.0 means ``Don't touch this if you're prudent.''; in the
open-source world it reads something more like ``The developers are willing to
bet their reputations on this.''.
>>>
Also there's some discussion of Padre reaching version 1.0 here:
http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/pipermail/perldl/2010-April/002930.html
And I should note that most of my original modules on
http://search.cpan.org/~shlomif/ are below 1.0 (possibly the only exception is
HTML-Widgets-NavMenu, where I bumped the middle version digit too liberally and
had to release 1.0), and yet they should be usable.
On the fun side see this IRC conversation:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
<d3x> btw, you can do mplayer -dumpaudio -dumpfile file.mp3
<d3x> no need to reencode
<rindolf> This -dumpfile is a nice trick.
<rindolf> Is it new?
<rindolf> I wonder when mplayer will hit 1.0 already.
<rindolf> Ah.
<rindolf> All the stuff I saw told me to use WAV and then encode.
<d3x> mplayer and 1.0? i'm not really sure it's their goal
<rindolf> They will stay at 1.0RC-foo forever?
<d3x> although i would be glad if they had some sensible versioning
<rindolf> Yes.
<rindolf> At the moment perl-Mojolicious is at 0.999924.
<rindolf> At least perl-Moose hit 1.00
<d3x> lol
<rindolf> Without any substantial changes from 0.99.
<rindolf> But you've got to upgrade somehow.
<rindolf> perl-Moose is MDV/RH notation, but I like it.
<d3x> imo it's just stupid not to release 1.0
<rindolf> I dislike libmoose-perl
<rindolf> Yes.
<d3x> wine did so and now they have normal versioning
<rindolf> Though most of my CPAN modules are sub-1.0.
<rindolf> http://search.cpan.org/~shlomif/
<rindolf> I think except for one module (where I used 0.2.0 0.4.0 and
eventually hit 0.8.0 and had to go to 1.000) all my 1.0 and
above modules are adopted.
<d3x> they are sub-1.0, but they are not 0.9.999.2010.03.11-rc5
<d3x> :)
<rindolf> One of them used the CVS revisions as versions.
<rindolf> d3x : LOL.
<rindolf> Yes.
<rindolf> d3x: can I quote you on that?
<d3x> i say it's stupid to make releases up to 0.9.something and
then not to release 1.0
<rindolf> I collect quotes on my homepage.
<d3x> sure you can
<rindolf> At the moment I have freecell-solver-2.42.0
<rindolf> But I hope the new release will be 3.0.0
<d3x> the one that was bought by freecell enterprise? :D
<rindolf> I've left GNOME and gtk+/glib behind.
<rindolf> d3x yes.
<rindolf> Freecell Solver Enterprises™ Inc.
<rindolf> Ah, so you've seen that.
<d3x> yes, you posted a link on #debian
<rindolf> Yes.
<rindolf> You should add a digest to the version.
<rindolf> 0.9.999.2010.03.11-rc5-adc83b19e793491b1c6ea0fd8b46cd9f32e592fc
<d3x> lol
<rindolf> In case you're using git or hg.
-- d3x and Shlomi Fish (rindolf) about FOSS Versioning
-- private conversation, Freenode
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(from
http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/fortunes/show.cgi?id=d3x-and-shlomif-about-foss-versioning
).
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/
Escape from GNU Autohell - http://www.shlomifish.org/open-source/anti/autohell/
To err is human; to apologise — divine.
Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
http://learn.perl.org/
