You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@cloudstack.apache.org by Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com> on 2021/04/15 09:05:36 UTC
[VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with
Apache CloudStack project
Hi All,
Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start a vote to gather consensus on the following actions:
1. Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on Apache Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former terraform cloudstack provider repository: https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note: re-licensing from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
2. Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the repository
3. Work with the community towards any further maintenance, development, and releases of the provider
4. Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after Apache CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members with access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if they've any)
The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate "(binding)" with their vote?
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
[1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
[2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers
Regards.
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue
Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache
CloudStack project
Posted by Sven Vogel <sv...@apache.org>.
+1
Cheers,
Sven Vogel
Apache CloudStack PMC member
--- Original message follows ---
Subject: Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with
Apache CloudStack project
From: "Nicolas Vazquez"
To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" , "private@cloudstack.apache.org" ,
"users@cloudstack.apache.org"
Date: 04/20/2021 13:12
+1
Regards,
Nicolas Vazquez
________________________________
From: Rohit Yadav
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 6:05 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org ; private@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache
CloudStack project
Hi All,
Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to
start a vote to gather consensus on the following actions:
1. Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository
based on Apache Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the
archived/former terraform cloudstack provider repository:
https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note:
re-licensing from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
2. Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on
the repository
3. Work with the community towards any further maintenance,
development, and releases of the provider
4. Publish official releases on the official registry [2]
if/after Apache CloudStack project gets a verified account (published
by PMC members with access to the registry, or following guidelines
from ASF infra if they've any)
The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to
indicate "(binding)" with their vote?
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
[1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
[2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers
Regards.
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com [1]
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1
9SGUK
@shapeblue
Nicolas.Vazquez@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com [1]
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1
9SGUK
@shapeblue
Links:
------
[1] http://www.shapeblue.com
Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache
CloudStack project
Posted by Sven Vogel <sv...@apache.org>.
+1
Cheers,
Sven Vogel
Apache CloudStack PMC member
--- Original message follows ---
Subject: Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with
Apache CloudStack project
From: "Nicolas Vazquez"
To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" , "private@cloudstack.apache.org" ,
"users@cloudstack.apache.org"
Date: 04/20/2021 13:12
+1
Regards,
Nicolas Vazquez
________________________________
From: Rohit Yadav
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 6:05 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org ; private@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache
CloudStack project
Hi All,
Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to
start a vote to gather consensus on the following actions:
1. Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository
based on Apache Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the
archived/former terraform cloudstack provider repository:
https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note:
re-licensing from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
2. Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on
the repository
3. Work with the community towards any further maintenance,
development, and releases of the provider
4. Publish official releases on the official registry [2]
if/after Apache CloudStack project gets a verified account (published
by PMC members with access to the registry, or following guidelines
from ASF infra if they've any)
The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to
indicate "(binding)" with their vote?
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
[1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
[2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers
Regards.
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com [1]
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1
9SGUK
@shapeblue
Nicolas.Vazquez@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com [1]
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1
9SGUK
@shapeblue
Links:
------
[1] http://www.shapeblue.com
Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack
with Apache CloudStack project
Posted by Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>.
+1 (binding) - I'll add my vote as well.
Regards.
________________________________
From: Nicolas Vazquez <Ni...@shapeblue.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 16:42
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; private@cloudstack.apache.org <pr...@cloudstack.apache.org>; users@cloudstack.apache.org <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project
+1
Regards,
Nicolas Vazquez
________________________________
From: Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 6:05 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; private@cloudstack.apache.org <pr...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project
Hi All,
Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start a vote to gather consensus on the following actions:
1. Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on Apache Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former terraform cloudstack provider repository: https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note: re-licensing from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
2. Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the repository
3. Work with the community towards any further maintenance, development, and releases of the provider
4. Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after Apache CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members with access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if they've any)
The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate "(binding)" with their vote?
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
[1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
[2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers
Regards.
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue
Nicolas.Vazquez@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue
Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack
with Apache CloudStack project
Posted by Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>.
+1 (binding) - I'll add my vote as well.
Regards.
________________________________
From: Nicolas Vazquez <Ni...@shapeblue.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 16:42
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; private@cloudstack.apache.org <pr...@cloudstack.apache.org>; users@cloudstack.apache.org <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project
+1
Regards,
Nicolas Vazquez
________________________________
From: Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 6:05 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; private@cloudstack.apache.org <pr...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project
Hi All,
Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start a vote to gather consensus on the following actions:
1. Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on Apache Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former terraform cloudstack provider repository: https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note: re-licensing from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
2. Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the repository
3. Work with the community towards any further maintenance, development, and releases of the provider
4. Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after Apache CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members with access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if they've any)
The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate "(binding)" with their vote?
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
[1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
[2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers
Regards.
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue
Nicolas.Vazquez@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue
Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack
with Apache CloudStack project
Posted by Nicolas Vazquez <Ni...@shapeblue.com>.
+1
Regards,
Nicolas Vazquez
________________________________
From: Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 6:05 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; private@cloudstack.apache.org <pr...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project
Hi All,
Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start a vote to gather consensus on the following actions:
1. Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on Apache Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former terraform cloudstack provider repository: https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note: re-licensing from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
2. Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the repository
3. Work with the community towards any further maintenance, development, and releases of the provider
4. Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after Apache CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members with access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if they've any)
The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate "(binding)" with their vote?
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
[1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
[2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers
Regards.
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue
Nicolas.Vazquez@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue
Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack
with Apache CloudStack project
Posted by Boris Stoyanov <bo...@shapeblue.com>.
+1 (binding)
On 15.04.21, 12:06, "Rohit Yadav" <ro...@shapeblue.com> wrote:
Hi All,
Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start a vote to gather consensus on the following actions:
1. Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on Apache Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former terraform cloudstack provider repository: https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note: re-licensing from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
2. Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the repository
3. Work with the community towards any further maintenance, development, and releases of the provider
4. Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after Apache CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members with access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if they've any)
The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate "(binding)" with their vote?
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
[1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
[2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers
Regards.
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue
boris.stoyanov@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue
Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack
with Apache CloudStack project
Posted by Harikrishna Patnala <Ha...@shapeblue.com>.
+1
I agree with Rohit on this.
Regards,
Harikrishna
________________________________
From: Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 5:07 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; users@cloudstack.apache.org <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>; mail@renemoser.net <ma...@renemoser.net>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project
Hi René,
From the discussion thread on the terraform provider, you can see some interest and commitment (https://markmail.org/message/xultlpdihdrrg4gq) and quite recently Peter/Fraunhofer and I/ShapeBlue had a meeting with Chris/Hashicorp to discuss and understand the handover/fork of the archived provider repository that Hashicorp is unable to maintain it and we agreed on the next steps; following which I started this voting thread.
I think from a project point of view when integrations are not being maintained by external projects, we should have a home within the Apache CloudStack community to keep them alive and it makes it easy for ACS contributors to work on it. There is nothing wrong with other providers/plugins being brought in by contributors if there is interest and demand in the community. We've done this before already, when the Kubernetes project removed providers from their codebase we created a new home for it within ACS project to be maintained and used by the ACS community: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider
Can you reconsider your vote? Or, is that a -1 binding vote (i.e. a veto)? Thanks.
Regards.
________________________________
From: Rene Moser <ma...@renemoser.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 15:05
To: users@cloudstack.apache.org <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project
-1
First, I didn't see much commitment in actively supporting and
maintaining this integration.
Second, there are many integrations, is terraform the one to pick for
using cloudstack from the view of the ASF?
A "plugin" for a software developed outside of ASF? What about puppet,
ansible, chef? The imbalance of this view results to a -1 from me.
Regards
René
On 15.04.21 11:05, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start a vote to gather consensus on the following actions:
>
> 1. Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on Apache Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former terraform cloudstack provider repository: https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note: re-licensing from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
> 2. Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the repository
> 3. Work with the community towards any further maintenance, development, and releases of the provider
> 4. Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after Apache CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members with access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if they've any)
>
> The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate "(binding)" with their vote?
>
> [ ] +1 approve
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> [1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
> [2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers
>
>
> Regards.
>
> rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
> 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue
Harikrishna.Patnala@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SG
@shapeblue
Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack
with Apache CloudStack project
Posted by Harikrishna Patnala <Ha...@shapeblue.com>.
+1
I agree with Rohit on this.
Regards,
Harikrishna
________________________________
From: Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 5:07 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; users@cloudstack.apache.org <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>; mail@renemoser.net <ma...@renemoser.net>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project
Hi René,
From the discussion thread on the terraform provider, you can see some interest and commitment (https://markmail.org/message/xultlpdihdrrg4gq) and quite recently Peter/Fraunhofer and I/ShapeBlue had a meeting with Chris/Hashicorp to discuss and understand the handover/fork of the archived provider repository that Hashicorp is unable to maintain it and we agreed on the next steps; following which I started this voting thread.
I think from a project point of view when integrations are not being maintained by external projects, we should have a home within the Apache CloudStack community to keep them alive and it makes it easy for ACS contributors to work on it. There is nothing wrong with other providers/plugins being brought in by contributors if there is interest and demand in the community. We've done this before already, when the Kubernetes project removed providers from their codebase we created a new home for it within ACS project to be maintained and used by the ACS community: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider
Can you reconsider your vote? Or, is that a -1 binding vote (i.e. a veto)? Thanks.
Regards.
________________________________
From: Rene Moser <ma...@renemoser.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 15:05
To: users@cloudstack.apache.org <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project
-1
First, I didn't see much commitment in actively supporting and
maintaining this integration.
Second, there are many integrations, is terraform the one to pick for
using cloudstack from the view of the ASF?
A "plugin" for a software developed outside of ASF? What about puppet,
ansible, chef? The imbalance of this view results to a -1 from me.
Regards
René
On 15.04.21 11:05, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start a vote to gather consensus on the following actions:
>
> 1. Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on Apache Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former terraform cloudstack provider repository: https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note: re-licensing from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
> 2. Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the repository
> 3. Work with the community towards any further maintenance, development, and releases of the provider
> 4. Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after Apache CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members with access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if they've any)
>
> The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate "(binding)" with their vote?
>
> [ ] +1 approve
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> [1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
> [2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers
>
>
> Regards.
>
> rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
> 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue
Harikrishna.Patnala@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SG
@shapeblue
Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack
with Apache CloudStack project
Posted by Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>.
Hi Rene,
Thanks for replying and confirming your vote a non-binding.
The speed and cadence around releases may be slow which depends on how much bandwidth contributors have; mere lack of release shouldn't be interpreted as the project or sub-project become a graveyard. The CloudStack Kubernetes provider indeed has issues and PR activities and a release being discussed - https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16, the main blocker on it so far was where do you release it (since most people want container builds) which has been solved recently by procuring access of dockerhub project by some PMC members under the official apache org (with help from ASF infra). Until k8s v1.15, the provider was shipped with k8s upstream so an immediate release after migration of repository was not necessary.
Regards.
________________________________
From: Rene Moser <ma...@renemoser.net>
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 17:56
To: users@cloudstack.apache.org <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project
Hi Rohit
On 19.04.21 13:37, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> Hi René,
>
> From the discussion thread on the terraform provider, you can see some interest and commitment (https://markmail.org/message/xultlpdihdrrg4gq) and quite recently Peter/Fraunhofer and I/ShapeBlue had a meeting with Chris/Hashicorp to discuss and understand the handover/fork of the archived provider repository that Hashicorp is unable to maintain it and we agreed on the next steps; following which I started this voting thread.
>
> I think from a project point of view when integrations are not being maintained by external projects, we should have a home within the Apache CloudStack community to keep them alive and it makes it easy for ACS contributors to work on it. There is nothing wrong with other providers/plugins being brought in by contributors if there is interest and demand in the community. We've done this before already, when the Kubernetes project removed providers from their codebase we created a new home for it within ACS project to be maintained and used by the ACS community: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider
>
> Can you reconsider your vote? Or, is that a -1 binding vote (i.e. a veto)? Thanks.
I am still -1 but non-binding,
My point is "we give it a home" is not the same as "we as members of ASF
care, develop and maintain it".
I would't like it when the ASF becomes a graveyard of unmaintained
Cloudstack integrations. Looking at
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider, it doesn't
look like it gets much care either, there's not even be a release yet.
Regards
René
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue
Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack
with Apache CloudStack project
Posted by Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>.
Hi Rene,
Thanks for replying and confirming your vote a non-binding.
The speed and cadence around releases may be slow which depends on how much bandwidth contributors have; mere lack of release shouldn't be interpreted as the project or sub-project become a graveyard. The CloudStack Kubernetes provider indeed has issues and PR activities and a release being discussed - https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16, the main blocker on it so far was where do you release it (since most people want container builds) which has been solved recently by procuring access of dockerhub project by some PMC members under the official apache org (with help from ASF infra). Until k8s v1.15, the provider was shipped with k8s upstream so an immediate release after migration of repository was not necessary.
Regards.
________________________________
From: Rene Moser <ma...@renemoser.net>
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 17:56
To: users@cloudstack.apache.org <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project
Hi Rohit
On 19.04.21 13:37, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> Hi René,
>
> From the discussion thread on the terraform provider, you can see some interest and commitment (https://markmail.org/message/xultlpdihdrrg4gq) and quite recently Peter/Fraunhofer and I/ShapeBlue had a meeting with Chris/Hashicorp to discuss and understand the handover/fork of the archived provider repository that Hashicorp is unable to maintain it and we agreed on the next steps; following which I started this voting thread.
>
> I think from a project point of view when integrations are not being maintained by external projects, we should have a home within the Apache CloudStack community to keep them alive and it makes it easy for ACS contributors to work on it. There is nothing wrong with other providers/plugins being brought in by contributors if there is interest and demand in the community. We've done this before already, when the Kubernetes project removed providers from their codebase we created a new home for it within ACS project to be maintained and used by the ACS community: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider
>
> Can you reconsider your vote? Or, is that a -1 binding vote (i.e. a veto)? Thanks.
I am still -1 but non-binding,
My point is "we give it a home" is not the same as "we as members of ASF
care, develop and maintain it".
I would't like it when the ASF becomes a graveyard of unmaintained
Cloudstack integrations. Looking at
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider, it doesn't
look like it gets much care either, there's not even be a release yet.
Regards
René
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue
Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache
CloudStack project
Posted by Rene Moser <ma...@renemoser.net>.
Hi Rohit
On 19.04.21 13:37, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> Hi René,
>
> From the discussion thread on the terraform provider, you can see some interest and commitment (https://markmail.org/message/xultlpdihdrrg4gq) and quite recently Peter/Fraunhofer and I/ShapeBlue had a meeting with Chris/Hashicorp to discuss and understand the handover/fork of the archived provider repository that Hashicorp is unable to maintain it and we agreed on the next steps; following which I started this voting thread.
>
> I think from a project point of view when integrations are not being maintained by external projects, we should have a home within the Apache CloudStack community to keep them alive and it makes it easy for ACS contributors to work on it. There is nothing wrong with other providers/plugins being brought in by contributors if there is interest and demand in the community. We've done this before already, when the Kubernetes project removed providers from their codebase we created a new home for it within ACS project to be maintained and used by the ACS community: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider
>
> Can you reconsider your vote? Or, is that a -1 binding vote (i.e. a veto)? Thanks.
I am still -1 but non-binding,
My point is "we give it a home" is not the same as "we as members of ASF
care, develop and maintain it".
I would't like it when the ASF becomes a graveyard of unmaintained
Cloudstack integrations. Looking at
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider, it doesn't
look like it gets much care either, there's not even be a release yet.
Regards
René
Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack
with Apache CloudStack project
Posted by Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>.
Hi René,
From the discussion thread on the terraform provider, you can see some interest and commitment (https://markmail.org/message/xultlpdihdrrg4gq) and quite recently Peter/Fraunhofer and I/ShapeBlue had a meeting with Chris/Hashicorp to discuss and understand the handover/fork of the archived provider repository that Hashicorp is unable to maintain it and we agreed on the next steps; following which I started this voting thread.
I think from a project point of view when integrations are not being maintained by external projects, we should have a home within the Apache CloudStack community to keep them alive and it makes it easy for ACS contributors to work on it. There is nothing wrong with other providers/plugins being brought in by contributors if there is interest and demand in the community. We've done this before already, when the Kubernetes project removed providers from their codebase we created a new home for it within ACS project to be maintained and used by the ACS community: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider
Can you reconsider your vote? Or, is that a -1 binding vote (i.e. a veto)? Thanks.
Regards.
________________________________
From: Rene Moser <ma...@renemoser.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 15:05
To: users@cloudstack.apache.org <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project
-1
First, I didn't see much commitment in actively supporting and
maintaining this integration.
Second, there are many integrations, is terraform the one to pick for
using cloudstack from the view of the ASF?
A "plugin" for a software developed outside of ASF? What about puppet,
ansible, chef? The imbalance of this view results to a -1 from me.
Regards
René
On 15.04.21 11:05, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start a vote to gather consensus on the following actions:
>
> 1. Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on Apache Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former terraform cloudstack provider repository: https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note: re-licensing from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
> 2. Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the repository
> 3. Work with the community towards any further maintenance, development, and releases of the provider
> 4. Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after Apache CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members with access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if they've any)
>
> The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate "(binding)" with their vote?
>
> [ ] +1 approve
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> [1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
> [2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers
>
>
> Regards.
>
> rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
> 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue
Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack
with Apache CloudStack project
Posted by Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>.
Hi René,
From the discussion thread on the terraform provider, you can see some interest and commitment (https://markmail.org/message/xultlpdihdrrg4gq) and quite recently Peter/Fraunhofer and I/ShapeBlue had a meeting with Chris/Hashicorp to discuss and understand the handover/fork of the archived provider repository that Hashicorp is unable to maintain it and we agreed on the next steps; following which I started this voting thread.
I think from a project point of view when integrations are not being maintained by external projects, we should have a home within the Apache CloudStack community to keep them alive and it makes it easy for ACS contributors to work on it. There is nothing wrong with other providers/plugins being brought in by contributors if there is interest and demand in the community. We've done this before already, when the Kubernetes project removed providers from their codebase we created a new home for it within ACS project to be maintained and used by the ACS community: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider
Can you reconsider your vote? Or, is that a -1 binding vote (i.e. a veto)? Thanks.
Regards.
________________________________
From: Rene Moser <ma...@renemoser.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 15:05
To: users@cloudstack.apache.org <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project
-1
First, I didn't see much commitment in actively supporting and
maintaining this integration.
Second, there are many integrations, is terraform the one to pick for
using cloudstack from the view of the ASF?
A "plugin" for a software developed outside of ASF? What about puppet,
ansible, chef? The imbalance of this view results to a -1 from me.
Regards
René
On 15.04.21 11:05, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start a vote to gather consensus on the following actions:
>
> 1. Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on Apache Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former terraform cloudstack provider repository: https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note: re-licensing from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
> 2. Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the repository
> 3. Work with the community towards any further maintenance, development, and releases of the provider
> 4. Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after Apache CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members with access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if they've any)
>
> The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate "(binding)" with their vote?
>
> [ ] +1 approve
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> [1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
> [2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers
>
>
> Regards.
>
> rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
> 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue
Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache
CloudStack project
Posted by Rene Moser <ma...@renemoser.net>.
-1
First, I didn't see much commitment in actively supporting and
maintaining this integration.
Second, there are many integrations, is terraform the one to pick for
using cloudstack from the view of the ASF?
A "plugin" for a software developed outside of ASF? What about puppet,
ansible, chef? The imbalance of this view results to a -1 from me.
Regards
René
On 15.04.21 11:05, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start a vote to gather consensus on the following actions:
>
> 1. Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on Apache Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former terraform cloudstack provider repository: https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note: re-licensing from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
> 2. Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the repository
> 3. Work with the community towards any further maintenance, development, and releases of the provider
> 4. Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after Apache CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members with access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if they've any)
>
> The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate "(binding)" with their vote?
>
> [ ] +1 approve
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> [1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
> [2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers
>
>
> Regards.
>
> rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache
CloudStack project
Posted by Wei ZHOU <us...@gmail.com>.
+1 (binding)
-Wei
On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 at 11:05, Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start a
> vote to gather consensus on the following actions:
>
> 1. Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on
> Apache Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former
> terraform cloudstack provider repository:
> https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note:
> re-licensing from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
> 2. Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the
> repository
> 3. Work with the community towards any further maintenance,
> development, and releases of the provider
> 4. Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after
> Apache CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members
> with access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if
> they've any)
>
> The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to
> indicate "(binding)" with their vote?
>
> [ ] +1 approve
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> [1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
> [2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers
>
>
> Regards.
>
> rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache
CloudStack project
Posted by Pierre-Luc Dion <pd...@apache.org>.
+1
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 2:06 AM Suresh Anaparti <
Suresh.Anaparti@shapeblue.com> wrote:
> +1 , on this new repo under Apache. Hope the community takes it forward,
> with further improvements and maintenance of this provider.
>
> Regards,
> Suresh
>
> On 15/04/21, 2:35 PM, "Rohit Yadav" <ro...@shapeblue.com> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to
> start a vote to gather consensus on the following actions:
>
> 1. Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on
> Apache Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former
> terraform cloudstack provider repository:
> https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note:
> re-licensing from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
> 2. Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the
> repository
> 3. Work with the community towards any further maintenance,
> development, and releases of the provider
> 4. Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after
> Apache CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members
> with access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if
> they've any)
>
> The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to
> indicate "(binding)" with their vote?
>
> [ ] +1 approve
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> [1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
> [2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers
>
>
> Regards.
>
> rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
>
> Suresh.Anaparti@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache
CloudStack project
Posted by Pierre-Luc Dion <pd...@apache.org>.
+1
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 2:06 AM Suresh Anaparti <
Suresh.Anaparti@shapeblue.com> wrote:
> +1 , on this new repo under Apache. Hope the community takes it forward,
> with further improvements and maintenance of this provider.
>
> Regards,
> Suresh
>
> On 15/04/21, 2:35 PM, "Rohit Yadav" <ro...@shapeblue.com> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to
> start a vote to gather consensus on the following actions:
>
> 1. Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on
> Apache Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former
> terraform cloudstack provider repository:
> https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note:
> re-licensing from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
> 2. Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the
> repository
> 3. Work with the community towards any further maintenance,
> development, and releases of the provider
> 4. Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after
> Apache CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members
> with access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if
> they've any)
>
> The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to
> indicate "(binding)" with their vote?
>
> [ ] +1 approve
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> [1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
> [2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers
>
>
> Regards.
>
> rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
>
> Suresh.Anaparti@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack
with Apache CloudStack project
Posted by Suresh Anaparti <Su...@shapeblue.com>.
+1 , on this new repo under Apache. Hope the community takes it forward, with further improvements and maintenance of this provider.
Regards,
Suresh
On 15/04/21, 2:35 PM, "Rohit Yadav" <ro...@shapeblue.com> wrote:
Hi All,
Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start a vote to gather consensus on the following actions:
1. Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on Apache Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former terraform cloudstack provider repository: https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note: re-licensing from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
2. Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the repository
3. Work with the community towards any further maintenance, development, and releases of the provider
4. Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after Apache CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members with access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if they've any)
The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate "(binding)" with their vote?
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
[1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
[2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers
Regards.
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue
Suresh.Anaparti@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue
Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache
CloudStack project
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 5:42 PM Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl> wrote:
> +1
>
> See the post below which I agree with
>
> On 16/04/2021 02:53, Nathan McGarvey wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > I've yet to find something as a viable alternative to Terraform that
> > allows flexible switching between cloud providers (or even co-using)
> > without huge code rewrites. One of Cloudstack's big sellers is it's
> > relatively simple and stable for setup and maintenance (not
> > over-abstracted, low cost to entry, can be installed without direct
> > internet access for private clouds, etc.). The downside is that, much
> > like every other cloud API, it requires a *lot* of custom code to
> > integrate for end-users/developers, so folks tend to migrate to whoever
> > has the fastest and lowest cost of adoption instead of ease of setup and
> > maintenance.
> >
> > Many [citation needed] folks are using Terraform (brief Internet
> > research: IEEE, Whole Foods, Udemy, Uber, and many more)
> >
> > As a potential alternative, if a an AWS/Azure/GCP/whatever
> > compatibility layer or similar was maintained to the point that you
> > could just document to use that Terraform provider, then this becomes
> > moot. (Though that is really just picking which abstraction layer to
> > maintain, so maybe not being tied to another company is good.)
> >
> > I also keep running across people mis-understand Terraform a lot. It
> > doesn't [usually] compete with puppet/ansible/chef nor things like
> > nagios/bro/solarwinds/elastic:
> >
> > 1. Terraform is used to provision from nothing. It is an external
> > tool that interacts with the cloud APIs for everything from instance
> > provisioning, volume management, and networking, etc.
> > 2. Ansible/puppet/chef to do stateful configuration management and
> > similar operations after provisioning (in most cases).
> > 3. Elastic/nagios/bro/solarwinds/whatever for continuous monitoring
> > for things that aren't cloud-native and need stability because they
> > can't just be "re-spawned" on failure.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Nathan McGarvey
> >
> > P.s.: If voting +2 were allowed, I'd be a +3. :)
> >
> >
> > On 4/15/21 4:05 AM, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start
> a vote to gather consensus on the following actions:
> >>
> >> 1. Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on
> Apache Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former
> terraform cloudstack provider repository:
> https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note:
> re-licensing from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
> >> 2. Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the
> repository
> >> 3. Work with the community towards any further maintenance,
> development, and releases of the provider
> >> 4. Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after
> Apache CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members
> with access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if
> they've any)
> >>
> >> The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
> >> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to
> indicate "(binding)" with their vote?
> >>
> >> [ ] +1 approve
> >> [ ] +0 no opinion
> >> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> >>
> >> [1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
> >> [2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards.
> >>
> >> rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
> >> www.shapeblue.com
> >> 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
> >> @shapeblue
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
--
Daan
Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache
CloudStack project
Posted by Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl>.
+1
See the post below which I agree with
On 16/04/2021 02:53, Nathan McGarvey wrote:
> +1
>
> I've yet to find something as a viable alternative to Terraform that
> allows flexible switching between cloud providers (or even co-using)
> without huge code rewrites. One of Cloudstack's big sellers is it's
> relatively simple and stable for setup and maintenance (not
> over-abstracted, low cost to entry, can be installed without direct
> internet access for private clouds, etc.). The downside is that, much
> like every other cloud API, it requires a *lot* of custom code to
> integrate for end-users/developers, so folks tend to migrate to whoever
> has the fastest and lowest cost of adoption instead of ease of setup and
> maintenance.
>
> Many [citation needed] folks are using Terraform (brief Internet
> research: IEEE, Whole Foods, Udemy, Uber, and many more)
>
> As a potential alternative, if a an AWS/Azure/GCP/whatever
> compatibility layer or similar was maintained to the point that you
> could just document to use that Terraform provider, then this becomes
> moot. (Though that is really just picking which abstraction layer to
> maintain, so maybe not being tied to another company is good.)
>
> I also keep running across people mis-understand Terraform a lot. It
> doesn't [usually] compete with puppet/ansible/chef nor things like
> nagios/bro/solarwinds/elastic:
>
> 1. Terraform is used to provision from nothing. It is an external
> tool that interacts with the cloud APIs for everything from instance
> provisioning, volume management, and networking, etc.
> 2. Ansible/puppet/chef to do stateful configuration management and
> similar operations after provisioning (in most cases).
> 3. Elastic/nagios/bro/solarwinds/whatever for continuous monitoring
> for things that aren't cloud-native and need stability because they
> can't just be "re-spawned" on failure.
>
>
> Thanks,
> -Nathan McGarvey
>
> P.s.: If voting +2 were allowed, I'd be a +3. :)
>
>
> On 4/15/21 4:05 AM, Rohit Yadav wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start a vote to gather consensus on the following actions:
>>
>> 1. Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on Apache Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former terraform cloudstack provider repository: https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note: re-licensing from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
>> 2. Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the repository
>> 3. Work with the community towards any further maintenance, development, and releases of the provider
>> 4. Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after Apache CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members with access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if they've any)
>>
>> The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
>> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate "(binding)" with their vote?
>>
>> [ ] +1 approve
>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>
>> [1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
>> [2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers
>>
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
>> www.shapeblue.com
>> 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
>> @shapeblue
>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache
CloudStack project
Posted by Nathan McGarvey <na...@gmail.com>.
+1
I've yet to find something as a viable alternative to Terraform that
allows flexible switching between cloud providers (or even co-using)
without huge code rewrites. One of Cloudstack's big sellers is it's
relatively simple and stable for setup and maintenance (not
over-abstracted, low cost to entry, can be installed without direct
internet access for private clouds, etc.). The downside is that, much
like every other cloud API, it requires a *lot* of custom code to
integrate for end-users/developers, so folks tend to migrate to whoever
has the fastest and lowest cost of adoption instead of ease of setup and
maintenance.
Many [citation needed] folks are using Terraform (brief Internet
research: IEEE, Whole Foods, Udemy, Uber, and many more)
As a potential alternative, if a an AWS/Azure/GCP/whatever
compatibility layer or similar was maintained to the point that you
could just document to use that Terraform provider, then this becomes
moot. (Though that is really just picking which abstraction layer to
maintain, so maybe not being tied to another company is good.)
I also keep running across people mis-understand Terraform a lot. It
doesn't [usually] compete with puppet/ansible/chef nor things like
nagios/bro/solarwinds/elastic:
1. Terraform is used to provision from nothing. It is an external
tool that interacts with the cloud APIs for everything from instance
provisioning, volume management, and networking, etc.
2. Ansible/puppet/chef to do stateful configuration management and
similar operations after provisioning (in most cases).
3. Elastic/nagios/bro/solarwinds/whatever for continuous monitoring
for things that aren't cloud-native and need stability because they
can't just be "re-spawned" on failure.
Thanks,
-Nathan McGarvey
P.s.: If voting +2 were allowed, I'd be a +3. :)
On 4/15/21 4:05 AM, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start a vote to gather consensus on the following actions:
>
> 1. Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on Apache Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former terraform cloudstack provider repository: https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note: re-licensing from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
> 2. Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the repository
> 3. Work with the community towards any further maintenance, development, and releases of the provider
> 4. Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after Apache CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members with access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if they've any)
>
> The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate "(binding)" with their vote?
>
> [ ] +1 approve
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> [1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
> [2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers
>
>
> Regards.
>
> rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack
with Apache CloudStack project
Posted by Abhishek Kumar <Ab...@shapeblue.com>.
+1
________________________________
From: Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>
Sent: 15 April 2021 14:35
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; private@cloudstack.apache.org <pr...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project
Hi All,
Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start a vote to gather consensus on the following actions:
1. Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on Apache Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former terraform cloudstack provider repository: https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note: re-licensing from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
2. Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the repository
3. Work with the community towards any further maintenance, development, and releases of the provider
4. Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after Apache CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members with access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if they've any)
The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate "(binding)" with their vote?
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
[1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
[2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers
Regards.
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue
Abhishek.Kumar@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue
Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack
with Apache CloudStack project
Posted by Suresh Anaparti <Su...@shapeblue.com>.
+1 , on this new repo under Apache. Hope the community takes it forward, with further improvements and maintenance of this provider.
Regards,
Suresh
On 15/04/21, 2:35 PM, "Rohit Yadav" <ro...@shapeblue.com> wrote:
Hi All,
Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start a vote to gather consensus on the following actions:
1. Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on Apache Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former terraform cloudstack provider repository: https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note: re-licensing from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
2. Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the repository
3. Work with the community towards any further maintenance, development, and releases of the provider
4. Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after Apache CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members with access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if they've any)
The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate "(binding)" with their vote?
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
[1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
[2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers
Regards.
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue
Suresh.Anaparti@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue
Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack
with Apache CloudStack project
Posted by Boris Stoyanov <bo...@shapeblue.com>.
+1 (binding)
On 15.04.21, 12:06, "Rohit Yadav" <ro...@shapeblue.com> wrote:
Hi All,
Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start a vote to gather consensus on the following actions:
1. Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on Apache Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former terraform cloudstack provider repository: https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note: re-licensing from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
2. Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the repository
3. Work with the community towards any further maintenance, development, and releases of the provider
4. Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after Apache CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members with access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if they've any)
The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate "(binding)" with their vote?
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
[1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
[2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers
Regards.
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue
boris.stoyanov@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue
Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack
with Apache CloudStack project
Posted by Abhishek Kumar <Ab...@shapeblue.com>.
+1
________________________________
From: Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>
Sent: 15 April 2021 14:35
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; private@cloudstack.apache.org <pr...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project
Hi All,
Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start a vote to gather consensus on the following actions:
1. Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on Apache Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former terraform cloudstack provider repository: https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note: re-licensing from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
2. Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the repository
3. Work with the community towards any further maintenance, development, and releases of the provider
4. Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after Apache CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members with access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if they've any)
The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate "(binding)" with their vote?
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
[1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
[2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers
Regards.
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue
Abhishek.Kumar@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue
Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack
with Apache CloudStack project
Posted by Nicolas Vazquez <Ni...@shapeblue.com>.
+1
Regards,
Nicolas Vazquez
________________________________
From: Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 6:05 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; private@cloudstack.apache.org <pr...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project
Hi All,
Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start a vote to gather consensus on the following actions:
1. Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on Apache Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former terraform cloudstack provider repository: https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note: re-licensing from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
2. Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the repository
3. Work with the community towards any further maintenance, development, and releases of the provider
4. Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after Apache CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members with access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if they've any)
The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate "(binding)" with their vote?
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
[1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
[2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers
Regards.
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue
Nicolas.Vazquez@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue