> On 22. May 2017, at 12:27, Ohad Levy <ohadl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Since we get a lot of lift from fog, especially for popular providers (e.g. > ec2) IMHO its not a good idea to remove fog, which means that we balance > between community contributions to fog (e.g. stuff we won't "enjoy" as we > will not corporate) vs other benefits mentioned above. > > I for one, is not convinced the effort to not run with fog is less work then > adding / updating a fog provider. > > Ohad
I do agree with Ohad here. I'd focus on improving the fog-providers and not trying to reinvent the weel. I think, "cloud" topics like focussing on real server orchestration (think hostgroup as an auto scaling group) adds more benefits for a user. A user usually doesn't care about the library used. Using foreman as a tool to setup a cloud or container environment on bare metal does add value. Fog doesn't do any network orchestration, yet. If we add this (e.g. provision a vlan on a switchport or some SDN), that would be a valid point imho to switch the library. - Timo -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foreman-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
