Its not wrong if it works. I think the more accepted way is to use capistrano-ext
I personally favor just building top level tasks that's sole purpose is to manage the 'stages'. On Nov 17, 2011, at 5:16 PM, newguy <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi guys > I have a Capistrano setup for managing EC2 servers and it works fine. > the problem is that its not a clean setup as the person who set it up > was playing with it and now I have to install it from scratch, I have > to use it to push PHP code and jar files (two different applications). > We have 3 envts: production, staging, qa. The main difference amongst > these 3 environments in the svn URL we fetch the code from > > We have the following directory setup, please let me know if there's a > better way to do it: > > There is a apps directory which has Capfile and config dir, config dir > has deploy dir. > > Capfile- tells what file to load based on the application parameter > passed from command line. Load 'config/deploy.app1.rb' if app == > "app1" > > config/deploy.app1 has all the tasks which we need to push code to > servers. > > confin/deploy/qa.rb sets the role and user > > Is this a acceptable way to implement Capistrano? > > Thanks > > -- > * You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Capistrano" group. > * To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > * To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/capistrano?hl=en -- * You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Capistrano" group. * To post to this group, send email to [email protected] * To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/capistrano?hl=en
