[zwischenzug]

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 the point of a level of indirection outside the shell script. But that might be just me :)

I talk a bit more about this here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVUPmmUU3yY

but it's quite heavily edited and a little out of date.

[contingencies]

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]

"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.