I'd love to see you write an article about this if there's not one already.
I think these are pretty common workflow issues people grapple with.
Rich
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 9:24 AM Rob Nelson wrote:
> The term 'environment' is overloaded. In the context of puppet, I
Hi
Think you missed my point. in my example I want to limit where the updates
go.
Presumably the puppet agent is set to some periodic period. I believe
30min.
so when i push my test case, say using the puppet --environment command,
30min later it will be updated back.
A
On Friday, 19
The number of branches you have has almost nothing to do with how fast your
nodes converge to a new desired state. If you want them to check in on
command, use mcollective or another orchestration engine to make that
happen.
On Thursday, August 18, 2016, Alex Samad wrote:
>
Hi
I have recently gone through this problem.
I had initial thought to you different branches for the different
environments.
say
prod
uat
sim
inf
dev
But was advised best to go with production and testing.
so I have and I have used a grouping in my ENC to put machines into the
above
The term 'environment' is overloaded. In the context of puppet, I prefer to
think of it as "a set of puppet code/data representing a branch of the
controlrepo' (puppet environment), rather than 'an environment that nodes
run in' (dev/qa/prod/etc) (node environment). Since you can make the latter
The static branches are basically Puppet environments in which nodes are
bound/pointed to them in their puppet.conf. This way we can open CR's per
set of nodes and move up the chain. Also, I may have found another option
on Gary's site. We could r10k our hiera data and split it from our
I'm missing why you need static branches. I'm picturing something more like:
git checkout production
git checkout -b ticket1234
# make changes, commit, push, test, repeat
git merge production # catch up on any prod changes, retest
git tag ticket.1234
git checkout production
git merge ticket1234
Rob,
Thanks for your reply. When our ops team makes a change in hieradata to
the dev branch for example, all dev machines (in the dev puppet
environment) will receive the new hiera data (we want this to happen). We
then ask them to merge that up to test, and finally to production. If an
Mike, is there a reason that Puppetfile changes and hiera changes are being
made in sync, when they aren't tied to each other? Perhaps those Puppetfile
changes that are not ready to be merged should be in a branch called
'experimental' (or even a more-persistent-than-normal feature branch) and
Thanks for your reply. We based our initial design on shit Gary says.
This may be our only option as you say, to have hiera data changes made to
each static branch/puppet environment by hand and not merge. We need the
static branches for separation of Puppet environments. Problem with this
It sounds like these might help:
https://puppet.com/blog/git-workflows-puppet-and-r10k
http://garylarizza.com/blog/categories/r10k/
Seems like you would benefit from having all teams work from branches of
current production and merge back, rather than maintaining a semi-permanent dev
branch
Hey all,
We are coming up on an issue in our environment in where we have multiple
Puppet environments that are backed by git branches in a puppet control
repo. Our Hiera data is stored inside these branches and changed
frequently by our Operations teams. Of which we then have them merge
12 matches
Mail list logo