Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Support for git modules? #2

Open
billclark91 opened this issue Feb 17, 2017 · 2 comments
Open

Support for git modules? #2

billclark91 opened this issue Feb 17, 2017 · 2 comments

Comments

@billclark91
Copy link

First, thank you for providing this module. It has proven to be very beneficial.

We currently have several server clusters each having their own chef organization.
Example: Dev, QA, Beta, Stage, Prod.

To allow customization of environments, we separated them into individual git repositories which maintain data_bags and environments per cluster.
Example: chef-dev, chef-qa, chef-beta, etc.

All cluster repositories share the chef-cookbooks and chef-roles repositories which are include as git submodules.

Example: chef-dev repo has
data_bags/
environments/
cookbooks/ ==> submodule to chef-cookbooks
roles/ == submodule to chef-roles

I was able to 'trick' chef_diff into pulling the repository recursively by specifying url as --recursively <repoURL>

Unfortunately I don't have a 'trick' for updating submodules which requires a separate command git submodule update --recursive --remote

What's the chances chef_diff could be updated to become submodule 'aware'? If configuration uses_submodules true, then use --recursive on clone and execute the additional submodule command for updates. I would also assume the submodule revisions must be tracked separately.

Thoughts?

@desdic
Copy link
Member

desdic commented Feb 21, 2017

No thoughts at this moment :( but we have been talking about how we will move to the next stage where we can push a specific change to lets say 2% of servers just to see if it works but we haven't done any work on it yet

@nyerup
Copy link

nyerup commented Mar 6, 2017

@billclark91 But it sounds pretty straightforward, and as if the default behaviour could be left unchanged. Do you have a patch that implements this suggestion?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants