Re: pdk 0.2.0
On 30 June 2017 at 09:03, Thomas Mueller <thomas@...> wrote:
There is currently no configuration at all for the PDK. Given our current (organizational) constraints our primary focus is on single module development, and Windows support, both big gaps in our current offering.
Once we get this set of features wrapped up, having a place to store per-user config (e.g. also for personalized defaults in the `new module` interview`) is high on my priority list.
And additionally maybe in the puppet modules metadata.json ? So it would use this if sometime i'd like to "rebase"/update from the module-template?
Great minds think a like :-D We already store the template-url and SHA of where the template was created from in the metadata.json. In the future this might also be useful to determine feature usage throughout the forge modules, and support upgrading from one template version to the next. With the experience from modulesync, I expect the latter to be easy - at least for the base template.
With the Puppet 5 release, which includes a new ruby version, this is high on our list. For now the focus is still on getting the workflow and tooling just right. After that, more rubies, and a top-level selector to choose a (set of) puppet version to validate.
It is our intention to support testing against/working with at least all supported puppet versions from a single PDK install.
We haven't yet finalized the selection of bits we want to ship at GA. Given our collective experience of pain around the ruby ecosystem changing beneath our feet, we're planning to have a completely locked base-set of gems built into the PDK installers, and tight pins through the puppet-module-gems. We still need to try that out for size, before we can commit to that, including some tooling around making those pins (and intentional updates) maintainable.