4 ms·

I don't see the point of managing state at all. If it's stateful you're doing it wrong, and likely deploying it wrong too. And if that's the case I don't see t

• contingencies 12y ago
  This comment is disturbing because it assumes there is a wrong way to do things. In fact, the point of managing state is to react to the changing state of different resources (ie. services in a service-oriented architecture, the physical or virtual systems they run on, the networks that connect them, etc.) and to automatically resolve failures through known and tested state-migrations. If you missed that, you're in no position to be calling people wrong. Further, anyone wrapping bash in python and calling it elegant is insane.
  • zwischenzug 12y ago
    "In fact, the point of managing state is to react to the changing state of different resources (ie. services in a service-oriented architecture, the physical or virtual systems they run on, the networks that connect them, etc.) and to automatically resolve failures through known and tested state-migrations." They should be part of the definition of your system (ie the state), not changed on the fly. If I said ShutIt was elegant, I was wrong (not sure where I did). It's not elegant, just as the real world is not. Anyone trying to make config management look elegant is selling you a pup.