hello, ----- "Luke Kanies" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 2009, at 11:40 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote: > > > > > hello, > > > > ----- "Markus Roberts" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> * Sites that need this functionality can set up a starting > >> environment > >> for nodes that only pushes the configuration file, and the > >> configuration file can be a template filled in with the > appropriate > >> external_node parameters. This will require an extra cycle for new > >> nodes and for existing nodes when their environment changes at > such > >> sites, but would not require any code changes or have any impact > on > >> sites that don't need it. > > > > I'd say this should be the last resort, I've seen several places > > that changes a machines environment fairly often, during maintenance > > > periods for example. > > > > Forcing the environment change to only happen after another run > > would be very bad for them. > > > >> * Change puppet to request the node information from the server > >> before > >> anything else (e.g. before plugins). This would have a small > overhead > >> for all puppet runs and necessitate a moderately small code > change. > > > > nice. > > > >> * Change the default environment on the client to a special "ask > the > >> server" environment. Clients that specified an environment in > their > >> configuration or on the command line would use that environment. > >> Clients that did not specify an environment would request it from > the > >> server, imposing a small overhead only for machines that needed > it. > >> This would require a somewhat larger code change. > > > > Even nicer. I assume we can then specify on the server the default > > environment that all unconfigured nodes would end up in? This would > > be very nice indeed. > > Yes. The "somewhat larger" code change part, though, is both more > code and decent bit more complexity - having values vary based on > client vs. server is annoyingly complicated. But it isn't really different behavior from what we had in 0.24.x so I think there's an expectation. I can see how it's a pain code wise though. > > > Keeping in mind that it is also very desirable to be able to set the > > environment via a fact. > > Hmm. Using facts complicates things even further, because it's > another way for the client to specify the environment. Why do you > want to be able to do that? machines know where they are and in what environment they are, it seems a logical extension. I've never seen this documented as something that should work, but always been glad it does :) I think Nigel use this method extensively as well, and it does work with 0.25.1rc2 > The next question becomes, do we need to do this for 0.25.1? I would > tend to say no, we ship 0.25.1 nowish (because it's ready), and only > do this for either a 0.25.2 if we produce one, or rowlf. I think 0.25.1 should get out there quick as we can really, and if we go for the above there'll be a lot of code changes, not the kind of thing to do at rc2 stage imho. -- R.I.Pienaar --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" 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/puppet-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
