On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 11:16:27PM -0600, Andy Doan wrote: > So I just rolled out an update to validation.linaro.org. This was > interesting for a couple of reasons: > > 1) I did the whole thing with a single salt command: > > ./lava-upgrade production 2>&1 | tee /root/lava-upgrade-2013-02-08 > > 2) I didn't do an changelog or tagging > > Both things might be semi-controversial: > > 1) I know there was an outstanding MP for lp:lava-lab where problems > were identified. I think I've fixed those, and you can look at the > recent changes to that branch to verify. > > Michael - the big thing I left out was to always run > "lava-deployment-tool setup" before doing an install/upgrade with my > new scripts. Here's my debatable logic: As you note this command is > basically idempotent. > > My thinking is that since it is idempotent, we should just always > call this function for actions in lava-deployment-tool like > upgrade/install/upgradeworker/installworker. As I said - this logic > might be debatable, but I made a "midnight decision" :)
Agreed. One of the principles of configuration management is to make everything idempotent, so if it already is, we should always run it. This also gives us the benefit of not having to remember runnnig it by hand when the setup changes. > 2) changelog / tagging - we are at a point where we don't *have* to > do this. Things are up in the air with versiontools. however, I > think in the future updates will look like this and that the only > things we tag are things at the end of the month That's exactly what I got from the thread about this a couple days ago. -- Antonio Terceiro Software Engineer - Linaro http://www.linaro.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ linaro-validation mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-validation
