On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:45:49 -0600 Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 31 March 2012 15:29, seth vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 14:25:35 -0600 > > Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> 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... kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
