On Sun, 2007-03-11 at 22:02 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > I'm ready to deploy the configs with puppet. Should we continue to use > CVS, upgrade to SVN or try to use something like hg (even though a > distributed SCM would have more negatives than positives IMHO for our > infrastructure. > > /me doesn't care, but does generally dislike cvs. One thing that has really bothered me lately about SVN is the lack of merge tracking. In an attempt to learn more about hg/git I've tried converting various SVN repos that I use to hg or git. It's very difficult to reconstruct the merge history (you basically have to guess/use heursitics based on log messages). So even though we wouldn't necessarily use the full "distributedness" of hg or git I'd say let's start with a SCM that's going to keep track of this sort of thing. Oh... I just thought of one way in which we might make use of the a distributed SCM to manage the Puppet configs. Someone who has some puppet/sysadmin skills, but who hasn't necessarily earned the trust yet to be given root access could contribute to the task of administering the Fedora infrastructure by checking out the Puppet configs, producing a patch and having it reviewed by the group. If the patch passes muster, one of the "core" admins would merge the patch into the Puppet config repository. Hopefully there wouldn't be any passwords store in the Puppet configs :). As to hg vs. git, I say let Mike pick his favorite and the rest of us will learn to deal with it. Jeff
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
