This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --ofkXWJqal4hweqPaB1M2bdG9o1GKgOqR4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu 21 Nov 2013 03:57:27 PM CET, Itamar Heim wrote:
On 11/21/2013 04:46 PM, David Caro wrote:
On Thu 21 Nov 2013 03:03:00 PM CET, Itamar Heim wrote:
On 11/21/2013 03:29 PM, Ohad Basan wrote:
+1
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden" <ewoud+ovirt@kohlvanwijngaarden.= nl> To: infra@ovirt.org Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 8:27:39 PM Subject: Puppet environment name / branch name
Hello,
I just deployed r10k to be the deployment method and it works gener= ally well. One problem is that it maps branches one to one. Currently I worked around this by making a symlink, but I think we should renam= e our master branch to production. Opinions?
is that common? usually master is named master.
_______________________________________________ Infra mailing list Infra@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
Maybe it's better to change puppet config to use master as the 'production' environment source of manifests. I say that because it's usually a mess to have a branch that it's not the master as master... (@work we use development as master in one of the repos, and I always submit a patch or two a month to master instead xd)
well, one other though is that if you ever intend to have more than a s= ingle branch, master is usually not the stable production one...
I suppose that it depends on the flow the company/project uses, in my=20 last job we used master as the stable branch, and we had devel as the=20 non-stable branch and one branch for each major version we supported,=20 but master was always the latest major version production-ready code.=20 Then on master we had tags for each release and so on. I suppose they=20 get the idea from gitflow=20 http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ But yes, bad habits are hard to get rid of. Any way is fine for me, but=20 if no one has any reason for the other way, I vote for using master=20 instead of production. -- David Caro Red Hat S.L. Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D Email: dcaro@redhat.com Web: www.redhat.com RHT Global #: 82-62605 --ofkXWJqal4hweqPaB1M2bdG9o1GKgOqR4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSjiZzAAoJEEBxx+HSYmnDwEUH/2jmHDW4WAYzHHhWezem6aXz Q8t8un/BZbdMfoWcdzC+ka76PYrxjVXuxZn1PWHR7xShcqzeIXvLfaFoRbERn2x3 kwoSl+zySG82dzQ9P7QjNpo7mr276TO4BiSh4ezbPagts6Ept+T5RKqPpJsY0cwA IjfaSB7bBpv46mtPNQyM/eu9EbcaWZTP3rttpAEib++CYuKn8I19yjVN3sw5esqM J88hLhWWlMSQlbBNuwv47Q75NcHo7igZhYYdxujF+V0l2/On85oYhuPn7eBcXki3 DJMKNPBjQFB2o5Tc90M0mt3KYpaV96Vxy9Et6UUIp60MYRkKlzsPp+TaMucPLTc= =VxMX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ofkXWJqal4hweqPaB1M2bdG9o1GKgOqR4--