FYI
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Tom Haddon <[email protected]> Date: 11 November 2013 09:45 Subject: Re: Charms, charm-helpers, and salt vs ansible To: Chris Johnston <[email protected]> Cc: Evan Dandrea <[email protected]>, Michael Barnett <[email protected]>, Andrew Glen-Young <[email protected]> On 08/11/13 18:44, Chris Johnston wrote: > Hey Tom.. I was told that you would be the person to ask. I know that > webops wants charms to use charm-helpers, however I'm not sure if there > is a particular direction that is preferred when it comes to Salt vs > Ansible. Is there a preference, or any sort of reason to use one over > the other? Hi Chris, I'm not currently heading up the WebOps team - that's Michael Barnett, although due to team rotations it'll be Andrew Glen-Young in a few weeks, so I've cc-ed them both here. We don't have an absolute policy saying "you must use charm-helpers" but we do strongly advise it for python-based charms (which we strongly prefer for any non-trivial charm). In terms of Salt vs. Ansible we haven't used or seen charms using either of those yet, but I don't believe we'd have a problem with either of them, assuming they're well implemented and don't contradict https://wiki.canonical.com/InformationInfrastructure/IS/Policies/Prodstack. Thanks, Tom > Thanks, > > cJ > > -- > Chris Johnston <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Software Engineer - CI Engineering Team > Canonical Ltd. > www.ubuntu.com <http://www.ubuntu.com> -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~canonical-ci-engineering Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~canonical-ci-engineering More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
