Hey,
Sorry might be wrong but from what I understand a Policyfile based workflow is pretty much like versioning a role with an associated Berksfile.lock.
I am not sure exactly how things are intended to be used but the associated provision cookbook should probably provision nodes from the given Policy name and nothing else. Each Policyfile would have their own provision cookbook (and maybe even git repo since they are versionned separately). This seem a bit extreme to me but could be greatly improved if we leverage named run lists in the Policyfile: then we can have multiple run_lists under the same Policyfile. I haven't tested that yet.
Maxime
On Jul 22, 2015 7:30 PM, "Chris Sibbitt" < " target="_blank"> > wrote:I've been experimenting with policyfile support lately, and I'm hoping someone can clarify some thinking around policyfile support in the "chef provision" command.`chef provision POLICY_GROUP --policy-name POLICY_NAME` lets me specify ONE policyfile and run a provisioning recipe. Policyfiles define a run_list, but one of my typical chef-provisioning recipes contains multiple machines with different run_lists.I'm not sure whether to take this as a suggestion that provisioning recipes should only do one machine each, or whether the tooling is just not quite meshing yet (I'm aware it's all very new and beta), or whether there is something conceptual missing from my thinking.Anyone else experimenting with this combination yet?
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.