On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 08:22:39 -0600 Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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... Is there still some interest in doing this? We're starting to think about replacing our F15 systems before it goes EOL, so it might be a good time to try getting some of this working. Tim
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
