Proposal for hosting our own set of modules

[Michael Scherer]

Le lundi 23 juin 2014 à 16:42 +0200, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden a
écrit :
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 04:30:55PM +0200, Michael Scherer wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > so following the discussion on puppet module, I would propose that we
> > create a new infra-puppet-modules module on gerrit. 
> > 
> > The division between this module and the current one would be like
> > this :
> > 
> > infra-puppet would hold the manifests, the site, the Puppetfile , etc
> > 
> > infra-puppet-modules would hold directories, 1 per module we develop
> > (not the external one we use, they would still be on github or anywhere,
> > pulled by librarian-puppet) .
> > 
> > Since we are using librarian-puppet
> > ( https://github.com/rodjek/librarian-puppet ) and r10k
> 
> We're only using r10k, not librarian-puppet.

Indeed. 

But in the end, we still use Puppetfile nonetheless, no ?

> > ( https://github.com/adrienthebo/r10k ) , it requires use to have the
> > modules/ directory to be managed by librarian-puppet. In turn we need to
> > have the modules in git, we can address them by path: 
> > 
> >   mod "puppetlabs/apt",
> >     :git => "git://github.com/fake/puppet-modules.git",
> >     :path => "modules/apt"
> > 
> > 
> > This wouldn't requires to change much, besides adding the module to Puppetfile and creating a git repository.
> > 
> > If no one disagree, I will request the git repository.
> > 
> > ( in the mean time, i did create a sample awstats repository for stats.ovirt.org, so we can have something to push )
> 
> Unless we plan to make them reusable for other projects, I don't see the
> benefit. If we do plan to make them reusable, we should IMHO also
> publish them on the forge.
> 
> Another potential issue is how we decide when to deploy. We could have a
> specific commit ID and update our Puppetfile every time, but again,
> little benefit over having them in one tree.

I was under the impression you could just give a tag and so use master ?
( and using branch for development )

> In case you're unaware, we already load modules/* (which is managed by
> r10k) and site/* (tracked in git). That means we can host our modules in
> site and spit off when they are reusable.

It was not very obvious that site/* was for modules, indeed :)

But my fault, I should also have read the doc in the git repository who
clearly say that.

I must also say that using r10k for different environments seems a bit
overkill, as we seem to only have 1 single environment anyway ( but I am
not using r10k usually, as I do not have enough systems for that and
write all stuff myself ). 

> And if we do plan on creating modules repos, I'd be in favor of having
> one git repo per puppet module since that is what most people would
> expect.

One git repo per module is a bit annoying when we are planning to write
a lot of modules. But I guess it all depend on the time it take to
create one. I would definitely prefer a approach of 1 big git as long as
we are "growing" fast and maybe split later, since it permit faster
growth ?


-- 
Michael Scherer
Open Source and Standards, Sysadmin



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/infra/attachments/20140623/86880de3/attachment.sig>