[systemd-devel] Deployment/environment names [was: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Add ENVIRONMENT to hostnamed]

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

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, josh at joshtriplett.org 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