i have contracted at a company that had the same policies, its not too unusual.
I think the code in my local subversion scm module may be a good place to start. Basically I tar (you could easily zip instead) up a release directory, send it to the servers and de-tar there. I think you could easily add an option to skip the tar-ing of the releases directory, and just point to a pre-tar'd (or zipped) package instead, as you suggest. On Feb 24, 12:34 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lately, I've talked to some people who deploy Rails apps in more > formal IT environments. There is some demand to deploy from a zipped > release package, instead of a Subversion trunk (or even a tag). It > comes from the notion that development and deployment should be > separated activities, for a bunch of security-related reasons. > Particularly that deployers should have no write access to source > code, while developers should have no write access to production > environment. > > As misguided as it may be in case of Ruby (that has no separation of > source and executable form), IT of some public corporations in USA and > Canada sees it as a legal requirement (usually referring to Sarbannes- > Oxley Act). > > I do appreciate the fact that Capistrano devs don't care about formal > IT environments and public corporations. But if someone on this list > does, a Capistrano recipe that does this in a nice way is worth > publishing. Myself, or somebody else in ThoughtWorks, may even have to > do it soon - by the nature of our work we do care about formal IT > environments more than we may want to admit. :) > > Thoughts? > > Alex Verkhovsky --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/capistrano -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
