On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 know that 2.6 is no longer maintained?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 When 2.6.x is no longer maintained for 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. An easy way would be to roll and update to the 2.6 release that logs a deprecation error on start via the init script. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
