On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 16:56, seth vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > 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 _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
