Naming convention for kickstarts

[brett lentz]

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 21:11, seth vidal <skvidal at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 17:13 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>>> Ok this may seem silly, but after wading through a bunch of kickstarts
>>> today trying to find out which ones are for what.. could we
>>> standardize on a convention? We have a couple :).
>>>
>>> I like this one:
>>>
>>> <host type>-<os>-<os-release>-<special>
>>>
>>> Examples.
>>> kvm-rhel-5-nfs
>>> xen-rhel-6-nohd
>>> hardware-rhel-5-xenserver
>>> hardware-rhel-5-nohd
>>>
>>> Once we have a convention, I can go and rename stuff to meet it (maybe
>>> put the kickstarts under a git tree also?)
>>
>> under a git, tree, sure - but do not, do not, do not, split the git tree
>> into staging/production branches. There's no point in that for the
>> kickstarts.
>>
>>
>> also - unless there is a compelling reason to - why don't we assume that
>> all new builds are rhel6 - and therefore kvm?
>
> The compelling reason I see is that it will be about 6-12 months
> before we have converted all our el5's to el6's so its probably a good
> idea to keep the other naming scheme around til then. [And just in
> case EL7 decides to go use oracle btrfs containers.. might as well
> just put the name in the front so we don't get confused in 2-3 years
> time :).
>

Forgive the question if it's already in place. I haven't checked.

Are these hand-crafted kickstarts?  If so, why not use Cobbler (which
supports using Git to version control all of its config files
already)?

I'm a big fan of being able to do 'koan --replace-self' on a system
when it's time to upgrade/reprovision.

---Brett.