4 ms·
It works okay. One shortcoming, as mentioned at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7831680 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7831680, is that there is no c
by walrus 12y ago
It works okay. One shortcoming, as mentioned at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7831680 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7831680, is that there is no clear model for state transitions. Let's say that on day 1, you want to use Apache:
- apt: name=apache2 state=present
Then, on day 2, you realize that Apache isn't hip, so you switch to nginx instead:
- apt: name=apache2 state=absent
- apt: name=nginx state=present
It works, but you're stuck with entries in your playbook that are there for purely historical reasons.
- doxcf434 12y agoIt depends on your deployment model to a degree. In the case where you build a new image for your web server on every deployment, then this isn't an issue. For longer running systems, like databases, it would still be an annoyance. I think that Ansible is still a transitional glue tech though, and projects like flynn.io may move things forward by making the CM part of the infrastructure a developer task vs. a devops one.