On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 01:16:04AM +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > > On 07/09/2014 01:05 AM, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote: > >On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 10:45:11PM +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > >>> > >>>On 07/08/2014 10:45 PM, Josh Triplett wrote: > >>>> >[Responding to this version because the latest thread hasn't appeared in > >>>> >the mbox archives yet. The comments apply equally well to the latest > >>>> >version, "Add DEPLOYMENT to hostnamectl".] > >>>> > > >>>> >On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 12:38:50AM +0000, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > >>>>> >>+static bool valid_environment(const char *environment) { > >>>>> >>+ > >>>>> >>+ assert(environment); > >>>>> >>+ > >>>>> >>+ return nulstr_contains( > >>>>> >>+ "development\0" > >>>>> >>+ "staging\0" > >>>>> >>+ "production\0", > >>>>> >>+ environment); > >>>>> >>+} > >>>> >Can we please*not* attempt to limit or "standardize" this particular > >>>> >set of machine roles? As already demonstrated in the previous thread, > >>>> >people have all sorts of staged deployment strategies. Furthermore, > >>>> >the concept of a machine role shouldn't be limited to service deployment > >>>> >strategies. > >>>> > > >>> > >>>Roles != the environment they run in. > >I'm not trying to bikeshed over the naming of the variable itself. I'm > >arguing that standardizing this particular bit of metadata won't work > >well when so many different deployment strategies exist. Thus, rather > >than having a fixed set of keywords, I'd propose simply saying "this > >contains keywords", and leaving the specific keywords up to the admin. > >If you attempt to standardize production/development/staging, you'll > >either end up with a model that only works for a small subset of > >deployments, or you'll end up adding twelve more keywords, at which > >point you might as well have just said "use whatever keyword you like". > > The 4 tier covers the majority of the models since more or less the entire > internet recommend three tier model including M$ [1] > Anyone wanting to extend that further can do so using the "PRETTY_HOSTNAME="
"PRETTY_HOSTNAME" does not equate to "description", and in any case is not the same thing as a deployment environment. > This patch is very specific to deployment environment and to solve a very > specific long standing problem and to achieve that we need to a standardize, > if we dont we can just as well drop this patch since in the long run we > cannot introduce something like "ConditionDeployment=" like David mentioned > and it kinda defeat's my purpose working in this in the firsplace... Distribution unit files will never use ConditionDeployment; only admin-created or admin-modified unit files will. Given that, it will work perfectly without a standardized set of names. Just specify that DEPLOYMENT contains a keyword *such as* (but not limited to) "production" or "development", and then state that ConditionDeployment can specify a keyword. That will work perfectly without limiting the set of possible keywords. - Josh Triplett _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel