On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:30:49AM -0700, Michael Stahnke wrote: > I am still not in favor of a puppet3 package. This is largely due to > overall compatibility. Puppet is a distributed system. Having the > package be called puppet in some repositories and puppet3 in others > (along with bin files/utils) will only the make the overall > user-experience of Puppet worse IMHO. > > Also if the existing Puppet (2.6.x) stays out there, how would a user > know that 2.6 is no longer maintained? Does having a second package > without an upgrade path leaves the end-user out-to-dry in the longrun? We can make the new package available, and do something to publicize that there is going to be a change. When 2.6.x is no longer maintained for security updates, the new package gets the old name and obsoletes the temporary name. If there's some way to put deprecation notices into the default output for puppet, it might be worth considering that. -- Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
