On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 06:44:19PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 01:16:04AM +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > > > > On 07/09/2014 01:05 AM, [email protected] 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. +1
Zbyszek _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
