Re: proposal: stop using servergroups in puppet
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 16:56, seth vidal <skvidal(a)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/
thoughts?
-sv
_______________________________________________
infrastructure mailing list
infrastructure(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
"The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance."
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard
battle." -- Ian MacLaren