On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Felix Frank < [email protected]> wrote:
> [snip] > > There are other exciting cases in there, such as "is a resource failed > if it's in sync but the refresh fails" and so forth. I feel that those > are more relevant, but should probably be handled on their own. This > should be possible, and I don't see that it would be contradictory for > the proposed design. In other words, fixes for related issues can likely > be implemented independently of merging this one. > > Specifically, one of the more disturbing examples from the ticket is this: > > http://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/5876#note-16 > > This one is not fixed through the proposed change. It will need another > change to the effect that a failure to refresh constitutes a resource > failure as well, I assume. Which it should. But, and I repeat myself on > purpose, this should be a different discussion. > Good points. I think that this issue would be a great candidate to fix for Puppet 4.0, but I think we should extract that to a separate ticket and address that separately. (For the fun of it I checked and I think it's a one line change to https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppet/blob/3.7.0/lib/puppet/transaction.rb#L224 to check for `s.failed_to_restart?` ) -- Adrien Thebo | Puppet Labs -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-dev/CALVJ9SLZbzJweVAM71rn6y1MVcmmkDQP7d7V2u7bxdkKVhTmpQ%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
