On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Seth Vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Michael Stahnke wrote: > >> I (we) completely realize this isn't totally awesome either. This is >> a problem when you have a distributed application that is trying to >> support the widest variety of host populations we can. >> >> This request was brought to us by community members, Red Hat >> employees, and business partners as well. >> >> I am happy to discuss other soutions/ideas too though. I am not 100% >> convinced my proposal is the best. >> > > I'm less worried about the people requesting the newness b/c they clearly > want change. I'm worried about the people who run rhel b/c they fear change. I'm more worried about people with hybrid environments where RHEL is at the core for Puppet. (and somewhat how RHEL 7 could shake out) Do you consider it ok to not be able to have Fedora agents check into a RHEL master? > > Perhaps they aren't likely to run epel, except it feels like they will run > epel..... b/c it is pushed so hard by all the el6's. > > I agree it is a suboptimal solution. Hey, since you work for puppetlabs - I > have a new idea - make them maintain backward compat with 2.6 :) > Well, yes and no. We are trying very hard with the 3 series to not break compatibility. 2.6 and even 2.7 had some ambiguous behavior that is now better defined which does help that. > That solves the problem for everyone, right? > > > -sv > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
