New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ext_pillar git does not allow to redefine base environment branch #11575

Closed
leonardinius opened this Issue Mar 27, 2014 · 10 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
7 participants
@leonardinius
Contributor

leonardinius commented Mar 27, 2014

The original use-case is explained at #11347

To summarize:

  • I use gitfs_base -> stage for development/testing for salt satets tree
  • ext_pillar git has hardcoded master == base relation

This prevents from using base -> stage with ext_pillar git. I am forced to use only 1 branch (master) and could not split separate base state tree environments (master, stage) in separate pillar repo branches.

@leonardinius leonardinius changed the title from ext_pillar git does not allow to redefine base envionment to ext_pillar git does not allow to redefine base environment branch Mar 27, 2014

@basepi

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@basepi

basepi Mar 27, 2014

Collaborator

Looks to be fixed in #11558.

Collaborator

basepi commented Mar 27, 2014

Looks to be fixed in #11558.

@basepi basepi closed this Mar 27, 2014

@basepi

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@basepi

basepi Mar 27, 2014

Collaborator

Ah crap, I didn't read this properly. This still needs to be done for ext_pillar, reopening.

Collaborator

basepi commented Mar 27, 2014

Ah crap, I didn't read this properly. This still needs to be done for ext_pillar, reopening.

@basepi basepi reopened this Mar 27, 2014

@basepi basepi added the Feature label Mar 27, 2014

@basepi basepi modified the milestones: Outstanding Bugs, Approved for future release Mar 27, 2014

@leonardinius

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@leonardinius

leonardinius Apr 5, 2014

Contributor

@basepi is it planned for next release or just sitting in the backlog?

Contributor

leonardinius commented Apr 5, 2014

@basepi is it planned for next release or just sitting in the backlog?

@basepi

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@basepi

basepi Apr 7, 2014

Collaborator

@leonardinius Sitting in the backlog at the moment. I'm hoping once @terminalmage finishes up some refactoring and feature work on the fileserver backends, he can bring git_pillar in line with gitfs. That said, he's very very very busy, so I'm not sure when it will happen.

Right now, our active efforts are much more focused on bugfixing -- we're making progress, but still many bugs left to fix!

Collaborator

basepi commented Apr 7, 2014

@leonardinius Sitting in the backlog at the moment. I'm hoping once @terminalmage finishes up some refactoring and feature work on the fileserver backends, he can bring git_pillar in line with gitfs. That said, he's very very very busy, so I'm not sure when it will happen.

Right now, our active efforts are much more focused on bugfixing -- we're making progress, but still many bugs left to fix!

@johtso

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@johtso

johtso Oct 22, 2014

Contributor

+1 on this, currently not able to have a separate pillar branch for my staging salt master because I can't redefine it as the base.

Contributor

johtso commented Oct 22, 2014

+1 on this, currently not able to have a separate pillar branch for my staging salt master because I can't redefine it as the base.

@ryancurrah

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ryancurrah

ryancurrah Dec 24, 2014

Contributor

really would love some one to take a crack at this hurting our efforts currently

Contributor

ryancurrah commented Dec 24, 2014

really would love some one to take a crack at this hurting our efforts currently

@whiteinge

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@whiteinge

whiteinge Jan 7, 2015

Contributor

The above pull request should allow redefining base. Note, the existing behavior of git_pillar overrides any previously defined environment of the given name. The above pull request does not change that. This behavior should probably be changed to append. But that can be another pull request.

Contributor

whiteinge commented Jan 7, 2015

The above pull request should allow redefining base. Note, the existing behavior of git_pillar overrides any previously defined environment of the given name. The above pull request does not change that. This behavior should probably be changed to append. But that can be another pull request.

@jubel-han

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jubel-han

jubel-han Jun 30, 2015

@basepi @cro We still have this problem, on ext_pillar use the other branch instead of master, will got Specified SLS '****' in environment 'base' is not available on the salt master, and I confirmed the branch data are same(just checkout from master). and the version of saltstack is salt-master 2015.5.0 (Lithium).

jubel-han commented Jun 30, 2015

@basepi @cro We still have this problem, on ext_pillar use the other branch instead of master, will got Specified SLS '****' in environment 'base' is not available on the salt master, and I confirmed the branch data are same(just checkout from master). and the version of saltstack is salt-master 2015.5.0 (Lithium).

@basepi

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@basepi

basepi Jul 1, 2015

Collaborator

@jubel-han Mind opening a new issue? This one has been closed for awhile. Please include as much information as possible, including your configuration and versions-report

Collaborator

basepi commented Jul 1, 2015

@jubel-han Mind opening a new issue? This one has been closed for awhile. Please include as much information as possible, including your configuration and versions-report

@terminalmage

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@terminalmage

terminalmage Jul 6, 2015

Member

It probably isn't necessary, this will be covered in the rewrite I'm doing here

Member

terminalmage commented Jul 6, 2015

It probably isn't necessary, this will be covered in the rewrite I'm doing here

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment