Forgot the list... :-/ 2008/11/7 Nicolas Steinmetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 2008/11/6 Jeff Forcier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Your closing statement does sound relatively accurate -- your tool's >> focus seems to be on setting up a "staging area" locally, getting >> things ready there, copying the files in one go, and then executing >> scripts on the remote end. Fabric, on the other hand, has been more >> aimed at writing a Python script "locally" which uses the SSH tunnel >> to actually execute the shell level commands on the remote server. >> File copying is obviously much the same anywhere. > > > Glad to see I understood all well :-) > > The deployment logic can be changed so I'm not (so far) reluctant on using > Fabric, if it can improve things... > > > >> There's really nothing preventing you from executing your current >> workflow using Fabric, however, since it's capable of working locally >> as well as remotely. > > > That's also what I was thinking about and what I basically try to implement > so far. > > > >> The main thing Fabric is missing that you seem to rely on is your >> "environments" and "tags", which sound similar to an item on our todo >> list, namely implementing a way to group servers together (something >> Capistrano refers to as 'roles'). We also do not have a baked-in >> concept of environments, but it's easy enough right now to implement >> them (I believe the current docs explore this somewhat, IIRC). > > > For the moment, I do as it is presented in the doc with a def production() > for ex. It may be not so efficient as a way to manage but it works as for > now. It will be great if the notions of hosts and roles are handled (I read > the mail about the patch for this, it looks in a good way). > > Regards, > Nicolas >
_______________________________________________ Fab-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fab-user
