I have added some more notes and code snippets to the MadHatter github. I have not had a chance to organize it all though as I am working to get the rest of the prototype integrated into the Cobbler code base. So far this has been a breeze. The code is really nice to work with, and integrating the API is turning out to be a hugh success so far.
I am currently doing some local testing and plan to release an alpha snapshot in the coming weeks. On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Jeroen van Meeuwen <[email protected]>wrote: > On 02/08/2010 05:07 PM, Jonathan Sabo wrote: > > I think its a good idea to try and further the configuration > > management capabilities in cobbler. I don't see doing that as > > reinventing the wheel. If you can replace the need to set up a > > separate run time configuration management system, awesome. I would > > prefer to build fully configured systems as part of the provisioning > > process over having to setup another system to do runtime > > configuration management if at all possible. I think a better work > > flow is to update your provisioning system (cobbler) and rebuild and > > reboot into a fully configured system. Do you disagree? > > My concern with the original pitch of the idea, which has been addressed > already, was two-fold. > > One was the danger of re-inventing the wheel, which is obviously a > choice anyone has to make for themselves. Sometimes in order to be able > to move forward a giant leap, one has to make a step or two backwards. > I'm the first person to understand that I just didn't see the point in > this case -again, based on the original pitch of the idea. > > The other concern was the need to manage the configuration of a node > during the runtime stage of a node's life cycle as well, not just during > the provisioning stage or during the bootstrapping. Again from the > original proposal, I didn't feel that was sufficiently addressed. Now > that we all know more about Kelsey's intentions with MadHatter, this is > less of a concern to me. > > Whether MadHatter is a poll, pull or push mechanism doesn't truly > concern me, nor does it concern me whether it is platform-independent > (but for that one proprietary software company's operating system > product series). > > Again, Kelsey has already addressed both; My concerns were based on the > original proposal, I just so happen to disagree and I feel I've made my > argument to the extent that I can. Maybe that's just because of my > fortunate disposition that I have, finding Puppet extremely easy to work > with. > > Luckily, Kelsey has found use in my responses and is going to clarify / > has cleared up what it is exactly he's after on aforementioned Wiki page. > > Win/win as far as I'm concerned ;-) > > -- Jeroen > _______________________________________________ > cobbler mailing list > [email protected] > https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/cobbler >
_______________________________________________ cobbler mailing list [email protected] https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/cobbler
