On Sun, 2007-03-11 at 22:02 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
I'm ready to deploy the configs with puppet. Should we continue
CVS, upgrade to SVN or try to use something like hg (even though a
distributed SCM would have more negatives than positives IMHO for our
/me doesn't care, but does generally dislike cvs.
One thing that has really bothered me lately about SVN is the lack of
merge tracking. In an attempt to learn more about hg/git I've tried
converting various SVN repos that I use to hg or git. It's very
difficult to reconstruct the merge history (you basically have to
guess/use heursitics based on log messages). So even though we wouldn't
necessarily use the full "distributedness" of hg or git I'd say let's
start with a SCM that's going to keep track of this sort of thing.
Oh... I just thought of one way in which we might make use of the a
distributed SCM to manage the Puppet configs. Someone who has some
puppet/sysadmin skills, but who hasn't necessarily earned the trust yet
to be given root access could contribute to the task of administering
the Fedora infrastructure by checking out the Puppet configs, producing
a patch and having it reviewed by the group. If the patch passes
muster, one of the "core" admins would merge the patch into the Puppet
config repository. Hopefully there wouldn't be any passwords store in
the Puppet configs :).
As to hg vs. git, I say let Mike pick his favorite and the rest of us
will learn to deal with it.