On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 17:54 -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > 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/ > or maybe: / == production staging in a subdir development in a subdir Does that make sense? -sv _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
