Re: Puppet environment name / branch name

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(a)kohlvanwijngaarden.nl&gt; >>>>> To: infra(a)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 generally >>>>> 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 rename our >>>>> master branch to production. Opinions? >>> >>> is that common? usually master is named master. >> >> 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 single > branch, master is usually not the stable production one... > I suppose that it depends on the flow the company/project uses, in my last job we used master as the stable branch, and we had devel as the non-stable branch and one branch for each major version we supported, but master was always the latest major version production-ready code. Then on master we had tags for each release and so on. I suppose they get the idea from gitflow 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 if no one has any reason for the other way, I vote for using master instead of production.