- From: Sean OMeara <
>
- To: Daniel DeLeo <
>
- Cc: "
" <
>, Chef Dev <
>
- Subject: [chef] Re: [chef-dev] Re: The Great Workflow RFC of 2014
- Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:06:34 -0400
I'll write up the Berkshelf Way workflow today
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Daniel DeLeo
<
>
wrote:
>
FYI, the pull request is here: https://github.com/opscode/chef-rfc/pull/34
>
>
--
>
Daniel DeLeo
>
>
>
On Sunday, July 27, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Adam Jacob wrote:
>
>
> I have posted and RFC that proposes two 'supported' workflows for Chef.
>
> This is my attempt to take the various pain-points enumerated on the list,
>
> on irc, and on twitter over the last few weeks and propose a solution. In
>
> watching and listening to folks frustrations with workflow, it feels like
>
> you can boil it down to a few things:
>
> The monolithic chef-repo works great for a lot of people.
>
> The "Berkshelf Way" (as opposed to Berkshelf the tool) doesn't solve a
>
> problem everyone feels they have. Meanwhile, for those who feel like they
>
> have that problem, they <3 it.
>
> We have put ourselves in an awkward spot, where much new tooling targets
>
> the Berkshelf Way implicitly.
>
> Regardless of the workflow, everyone wants the testing tools to work.
>
> Some folks dislike the Berkshelf implementation
>
>
>
>
>
> This RFC proposes making two workflows "supported", which means we expect
>
> them to work all the time, be supported in documentation and the
>
> community, and for tool builders to target them.
>
>
>
>
>
> It also proposes adding generators and workflow commands to the 'chef'
>
> command in Chef DK. This means we can make the target for documentation
>
> and tool builders much smaller, as the work of noticing which workflow you
>
> prefer is done by the tooling. Where there is overlap with knife, we are
>
> going to subsume that functionality, and make it compatible at the options
>
> level (and perhaps turn the knife plugins themselves into wrappers.)
>
>
>
>
>
> Lets fix it! Let me know what I didn't cover.
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm explicitly not detailing implementation, or even putting effort in to
>
> what the future might hold for either workflow, or a third workflow. Lets
>
> document and standardize what we have, make the experience better, then we
>
> can talk about improvements.
>
>
>
>
>
> Adam
>
>
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.