proposal: stop using servergroups in puppet

[seth vidal]

On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 17:54 -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 16:56, seth vidal <skvidal at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 12:05 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > > alternative proposal:
> >> >
> >> > It does help make things clearer and much more "granular" but let's
> >> > say one host has a minor difference in how the service is configured,
> >> > we would have to accomodate the tweak somehow either by cloning a
> >> > service definition and making the new definition specific to the host
> >> > or by adding in extra modifications using another specification file.
> >>
> >> okay? and? We do that now, don't we? How is this different?
> >>
> >>
> >> really, all I'm suggesting here is moving files around.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > okay - I've merged/mv'd the files in puppet master from servergroups to
> > services and I've modified site.pp to reflect that.
> >
> > this is ONLY in master/production and it is DONE.
> >
> >
> >
> > I was starting to do it in staging and I thought "hmm, is now a good
> > time to go ahead and move staging away from a branch and into
> > main-line?"
> >
> >
> > the plan here would be to take all the staging bits and move them into
> > either separate class definitions and/or subdirs (for the config files)
> > so that we don't ever have merge/cherrypick issues between the two
> > branches.
> 
> something like?
> 
> development/
> staging/
> production/
> 

or maybe:

/ == production
staging in a subdir
development in a subdir

Does that make sense?

-sv