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 :)?) Just piping up from an AutoQA perspective. We don't really have much of a preference on tooling since AFAIK, none of us have much experience with puppet, bcfg2 or ansible. I just request that if anyone does start on this, please let at least one of us (kparal, jsladan or myself) know. We're up to (or past, depending on the day) our eyeballs in F17 beta testing at the moment and I tend to drop what I'm doing if I get unexpected nagios notifications about hosts being down or reports that AutoQA isn't working. We also have some unpackaged tools that need to stick around if that's an issue. One of them is a tool that I wrote and I plan to package it, just haven't made the time to do so yet. The other is pending discussion once things calm down a bit in QA land Tim
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
