[chef] Re: Re: Re: How to push to upstream cookbook-vendor branch?

[Joshua Timberman < >]

Hi Zac!

On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Zac Stevens 
<
 >
 wrote:
>
> Thanks for calling out those two workflows - though I'm now curious as
> to whether my experience using community cookbooks is atypical.  While
> a good handful have been suitable "off the shelf", the larger portion
> have required work to be usable.
>
> Do users on Ubuntu (or other non-Centos platforms) tend to find that
> community cookbooks need no changes beyond their own site-specific
> customisations?
>
> The two main reasons we've had to make changes have been:
>  1) patchy support for Centos, and,
>  2) unparameterised configuration which wasn't suitable for our environment.

When it comes to the Opscode cookbooks that are shared on the
community site[0], we're working on what it means to support various
platforms, including a list of which platforms we *do* support. This
will come in the form of documentation and an announcement.

Out of this, we will also gain:

1. Improvements to the cookbooks we share for the platforms we
officially support.
2. More "parameterization" of configuration through attributes and
data bags (depending on context).

> Does this suggest a third workflow?  A low-friction process for
> submitting fixes benefits the quality of cookbooks on offer to the
> community, and may appeal to a different population of users than
> those interested in releasing cookbooks they've created from scratch.

The workflow for contributing fixes to the Opscode cookbooks follows
the similar workflow to the Chef project itself[1], and the wiki
documents the general process.

Workflow for contributing fixes to other cookbooks on the site depends
on what the authors of those cookbooks wants.

[0]: Only 116 out of 322, or 36% of the cookbooks on the community
site are published by Opscode.
[1]: http://wiki.opscode.com/display/chef/Working+with+Git