qa machine management

[Tim Flink]

On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 08:22:39 -0600
Kevin Fenzi <kevin at scrye.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:45:49 -0600
> Stephen John Smoogen <smooge at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 31 March 2012 15:29, seth vidal <skvidal at fedoraproject.org>
> > wrote:
> > > On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 14:25:35 -0600
> > > Stephen John Smoogen <smooge at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > 
> > > One concern I have with bcfg2 is lack of momentum. Since, for all
> > > intents and purposes it is just puppet but in python.
> > >
> > 
> > Well I am more worried about xml versus playbooks. in any case I
> > think I will go with ansible .. will see how much I can learn while
> > on Percacet (hey its QA environment right before release.. how bad
> > could it be :)?)
> > 
> > > One of the reasons I've been looking so hard at ansible is simple
> > > - it doesn't require a client-side. It's all push-based. From a
> > > logging and quietness-standpoint it should be significantly better
> > > especially for our environment where if a host cannot reach
> > > lockbox01 we know we cannot do anything else.
> 
> well, if QA folks are willing to give that a try, sounds reasonable to
> me. ;) 
> 
> I'd suggest we leave the autoqa machines alone until after release,
> but instead look at the other not very used ones in the list to try
> things on. 
> 
> Perhaps Tim can chime in here and explain the kinds of things they
> are doing now that they would like to not have to do once things are
> automated...

Is there still some interest in doing this? We're starting to think
about replacing our F15 systems before it goes EOL, so it might be a
good time to try getting some of this working.

Tim
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20120604/d340a302/attachment.sig>