On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 21:11, seth vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
