On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 3:55 PM, John Bollinger <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 2:25:15 AM UTC-5, Chris Price wrote: > > >> I have a question / thought experiment related to this, and would really >> love to hear some feedback from the community: >> >> What would you think about a setup where your master never saw any of >> your code changes at all, until you ran a specific command (e.g. 'puppet >> deploy')? In other words, you hack away on the modules / manifests / hiera >> data in your code tree as much as you like but your master keeps compiling >> catalogs from the 'last known good' setup, until you run this 'deploy' >> command? At that point, all of your current code becomes the new 'last >> known good' and that is what your master compiles off of until you do >> another deploy. >> > > > I like that pretty well. If Puppet moved in this direction, though, then > it would be nice to protect against "last known good" turning out to not be > so good after all by making it a blessed configuration that has actually > proven good. That way, if a fresh code deployment turns out to be bad then > there is a genuine known good configuration that can quickly be restored. > In other words, I'm suggesting three configurations instead of two: > undeployed, deployed, and known good. > Any thoughts on what the commands might look like there? Particularly the command to flag something as 'last known good'? Also, Erik mentioned that he'd expect this to work on a per-environment level... I'm trying to think about what 'last known good' would look like in that context. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-dev/CAMx1QfJ2Nu5E4nBgY0DbCXJYOjzcaEPsx1EfXVW1Mw8TJW960w%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
