Puppet modules organization

[Ohad Basan]

#2 makes much more sense to me
I vote for it


----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Caro" <dcaroest at redhat.com>
> To: "infra" <infra at ovirt.org>
> Cc: "Eyal Edri" <eedri at redhat.com>, "Ohad Basan" <obasan at redhat.com>, "knesenko" <knesenko at redhat.com>, "Ewoud Kohl
> van Wijngaarden" <ewoud+ovirt at kohlvanwijngaarden.nl>, "Michael Scherer" <mscherer at redhat.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 12:36:35 PM
> Subject: Puppet modules organization
> 
> Hi everyone!
> 
> I'm starting a thread to discuss the puppet modules organization.
> 
> There are two proposed ways of organizing them:
> 
> 1.- Using a unique module named ovirt_infra
> 2.- Using multiple modules, named ovirt_*
> 
> Feel free to propose other alternatives, the main points for each one are:
> 
> 1.- Everything inside one module, easy to find
> 1.- Easy to add a new class, just create the file
> 1.- Easy to create hard to maintain code
> 1.- Easy to create very interdependent code
> 
> 
> 2.- Enforces modularization of the different code (one module, one task),
> that
> brings
> 2.- Easier to test
> 2.- Safe to reuse
> 2.- More organized (not everything in the same place)
> 2.- It's the most common way of organizing puppet manifests, so the main
> guidelines, patterns and most of the documentation expects this way of
> working.
> 
> 
> Please send your comments and if too many I'll open a pad with the them for
> easy
> review.
> 
> 
> I vote for #2, modularized organization.
> 
> 
> --
> David Caro
> 
> Red Hat S.L.
> Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D
> 
> Email: dcaro at redhat.com
> Web: www.redhat.com
> RHT Global #: 82-62605
> 
>