> From: Greg Swift <xaeth@fedoraproject.org>
> To: Development discussions related to Fedora <devel@lists.fedoraproject.org>
> Date: 10/23/2012 15:51
> Subject: Re: Fixing Puppet in Fedora/EPEL
> Sent by: devel-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Matthew Miller
> <mattdm@fedoraproject.org> 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 know that 2.6 is no longer maintained?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 When 2.6.x is no longer maintained for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.

And ideally the message would also land in the tagmail deliveries once upon first catalog compilation after the puppet master is restarted -- much like the 2.7 deprecation notice for dynamically scoped variables was handled.  That was a very nice compromise between (1) you should see this and (2) not being annoying about it.  I would personally like to see the puppet folks adopt something like this as an ongoing policy for all deprecations/obsoletions with as much as advance notice as reasonably possible.

--
John Florian