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?
+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 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? _______________________________________________ Infra mailing list Infra@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
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 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.
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --O7oG0UXqSOBKPaplrfeiJtUTXXTk45obC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 general= ly 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.
_______________________________________________ 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=20 'production' environment source of manifests. I say that because it's=20 usually a mess to have a branch that it's not the master as master...=20 (@work we use development as master in one of the repos, and I always=20 submit a patch or two a month to master instead xd) -- 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 --O7oG0UXqSOBKPaplrfeiJtUTXXTk45obC 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) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSjhzhAAoJEEBxx+HSYmnDxX8H/1BDPvtlxfQzlbaRijJLDyON LzxV0ti2HnvWQVd8ELKsz2KVWbPS/ufOaK7+TLsibtBzZQkRji0y2TC/JaTy1jlS XHcLdRuKOhkeLA66z0y7gQTo1x4eQS9iCUO9ZyK8JupCSJpbBl6R+4ZzRWkU/fIk /rpAWpI77Rn2lO/RZP5Xx4XNo8Pv3vWjilj3AdBWGR21wawr/P4mMv8raRJWcr39 vQWzv1N/xJuE6Cpm8bKnX6gvpmPtjv/m/ReNWUWqdPKjfoBv4zO9wM/DJMqCb55K sJLtKQVRHI2TNiOIe54uBMyoPhJ6fGFAs0V5Yf0CRn1DjLGgoiL/RRP2SRv4TNs= =QJKJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --O7oG0UXqSOBKPaplrfeiJtUTXXTk45obC--
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 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.
_______________________________________________ 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 single branch, master is usually not the stable production one...
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--
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 04:27:47PM +0100, David Caro wrote:
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 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.
I think r10k doesn't care about branches, it just maps them 1-to-1 to puppet environments. That means we can also move all our puppet clients to master if you think that's better. We could also add a testing branch to create a testing environment for example. My suggestion to make it production is that even when you're writing patches, you know it's for production. My experience with working on non-master is that it's trivial for new clones (assuming you change HEAD on the remote server) and some effort for every existing clone.
participants (4)
-
David Caro -
Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden -
Itamar Heim -
Ohad Basan