On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Luke Kanies <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sep 28, 2009, at 1:16 AM, sam wrote: >> On Sep 28, 3:02 pm, Luke Kanies <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Sep 27, 2009, at 5:41 PM, sam wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hello, >>>> I am thinking of wiring filebucket to save to a git repo. >>>> It would allow diffs and history, is that something worthwhile for >>>> inclusion ? >>> >>> I think it's a great idea. In fact, I've written a prototype of it: >>> >>> http://gist.github.com/77811 >>> >>> It's just a thin executable, without the Puppet integration, and it's >>> all execs rather than library calls. It also doesn't do any of the >>> history, which you'd obviously want -- it's just the blobs, with no >>> branches or anything. >>> >>> I'd love to have this supported. How were you thinking of doing it? >>> >> >> the filebucket would store the replaced files in a git repo on the >> local host, using rubygem-git and commit at the end of a puppet run, a >> file would be placed into $GITROOT/$FULLPATH of original file. no >> symlinks. >> filebucket { main: path => git://$gitpath } >> >> A centralized git server I suppose is nice, keep a branch per server >> (all lost on server renames). Would the best way be keep a git clone - >> l per server, then pull, add the file, then push back to the branch ? >> sounds like a bottle neck. if there is interest I would prefer to keep >> it as a stage 2. >> >> The history/diffs would be something a person would run on the git >> repo themselves, I don't have good ideas of integrating that part into >> puppet or it's usability. it's so much easier to use git to find the >> rev you want and you would need to add the file back to puppetmaster >> manually as the restored file would have been a puppet template or a >> file resource (tidy aside) >> >> did you expect more or have a more thought out idea? > > This is pretty much what I was planning. I think the server-side sync > is pretty useful, but the single-host git-based filebucket is > definitely the main win. > > I was hoping to do it all with direct commands to manipulate the git > repo, rather than having a checkout, but I think the simple version is > a good start. >
> The only other thing I might recommend is tagging the repo every time > there's a change, so you can correlate the stored files with a given > version of the catalog. ++ for this suggestion. -- nigel --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
