An RFC to standarize on two workflows

This RFC proposes two workflows as "supported", and abstracts
as much of their differences as possible through the use of
additional generators and functionality in the 'chef' command.

If accepted, this RFC would also serve as a guide for tool makers,
as to what the requirements are for maximum converage in the Chef
community.

While other workflows are possible, this RFCs job is to say which
ones we support officially.
I hadn't even thought about it, but yes - we should support both in the
generator. Should we be defaulting to json or ruby?


On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Steven Danna <notifications@github.com>
wrote:

> In great-workflow.md:
>
> > +
> > +```
> > +$ git add snazzy
> > +$ git commit -a -m "One snazzy cookbook"
> > +```
> > +
> > +### How to create your Chef policy (everything that isn't a cookbook)
> > +
> > +To create a new type of policy document, from the top of your chef-repo:
> > +
> > +```
> > +$ chef generate THING name
> > +```
> > +_Note: None of these generators exist yet. They should subsume the functionality of the attendent knife X commands, and be intelligent about which workflow we've chosen._
> > +
> > +This will result in a blank, JSON formatted policy document created in the appropriate
>
> Will we still support using the Ruby DSL for things like roles and
> environments here?
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/opscode/chef-rfc/pull/34/files#r15762152>.
>