On Tue, 7 Oct 2014, Jeremy Baron wrote:
On Oct 7, 2014 1:07 PM, "Jeff Green" <[email protected]> wrote: > Last/worst approach would be to make the host its own puppetmaster. I'm hoping to avoid this. What difference would that make?
I'm not sure I understand the question, but if deployment-mx hosts its own puppet I think I can comment out "include role::mail::sender" in the local copy of role::labs::instance and move on.
But this is awful because it will just lead to bitrot for that instance.
puppetmaster should be deployment-salt for all beta instances -Jeremy
_______________________________________________ Labs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/labs-l
