Re: looking for suggestions for managing a tree of server configs

> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 12:57 AM,  <david@lang.hm> wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> david@lang.hm writes:
>>>> I've got a directory tree that holds config data for all my
>>>> servers. This consists of one directory per server (which is updated
>>>> periodically from what is currently configured on that server), plus
>>>> higher level summary reports and similar information.
>>>>
>>>> today I have just a single git tree covering everything, and I make a
>>>> commit each time one of the per-server directories is updated, and
>>>> again when the top-level stuff is created.
>>>
>>> It is quite clear to me what you are keeping at the top-level files,
>>> but if a large portion of the configuration for these servers are
>>> shared, it might not be a bad idea to have a canonical "gold-master"
>>> configuration branch, to which the shared updates are applied, with
>>> a branch per server that forks from that canonical branch to keep
>>> the machine specific tweaks as differences from the canonical stuff,
>>> instead of having N subdirectories (one per machine).
>>
>> In an ideal world yes, but right now these machines are updated by many
>> different tools (unforuntantly including 'vi'), so these directories aren't
>> the config to be pushed out to the boxes (i.e. what they should be), it's
>> instead an archived 'what is', the result of changes from all the tools.
>>
>> The systems are all built with a standard image, but the automation tools I
>> do have tend to push identical files out to many of the systems (or files
>> identical except for a couple of lines)
>
> David,
> Is there any particular reason you aren't using etckeeper?