xarses at gmail.com
Tue Sep 5 17:17:26 UTC 2017
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 6:47 AM Mohammed Naser <mnaser at vexxhost.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 4:15 AM, Emil Enemærke <enemarke at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I have stated using the puppet-ceph module for deploying ceph, and have
> > noticed a heavy use of exec in fx define 'ceph::osd'
> > (https://github.com/openstack/puppet-ceph/blob/master/manifests/osd.pp).
> > there a reason for not writing this define as an ensurable type/provider?
> > Otherwise I will fork the module an start on rewriting it for a
> > type/provider.
> Thanks for helping out. I'm happy to see folks using the puppet-ceph
> modules! I think the reason why we've relied of the Exec's is purely
> historic. If you have a patch that would convert it to an ensurable
> type and provider, we'd be more than happy to merge it!
As manser pointed out, the reason for the exec's is purely historic, in
that the initial implementation team wasn't comfortable with developing
ruby providers given our familiarity at the time. It was easier for us to
develop and troubleshoot the execs directly.
We'd be more than happy to have reviews to migrate to a ruby implementation
If you have any questions, feel free to pop by on #puppet-openstack on
> > Cheers
> > Emil
> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > Unsubscribe:
> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-dev