[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.ya...@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
-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.ya...@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
+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.ya...@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
+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.ya...@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
+1 On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 5:42 PM Wido den Hollander 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.ya...@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
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 Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 15:05 To: users@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.ya...@shapeblue.com > www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com> > 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK > @shapeblue > > > > rohit.ya...@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
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
+1 From: Rohit Yadav Sent: 15 April 2021 14:35 To: d...@cloudstack.apache.org ; priv...@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.ya...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com> 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK @shapeblue abhishek.ku...@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
+1 I agree with Rohit on this. Regards, Harikrishna From: Rohit Yadav Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 5:07 PM To: d...@cloudstack.apache.org ; users@cloudstack.apache.org ; m...@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 Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 15:05 To: users@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.ya...@shapeblue.com > www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com> > 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK > @shapeblue > > > > rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com> 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK @shapeblue harikrishna.patn...@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
+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" 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.ya...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK @shapeblue suresh.anapa...@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
+1 (binding) On 15.04.21, 12:06, "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.ya...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK @shapeblue boris.stoya...@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
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 Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 17:56 To: users@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.ya...@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
+1 Regards, Nicolas Vazquez From: Rohit Yadav Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 6:05 AM To: d...@cloudstack.apache.org ; priv...@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.ya...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com> 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK @shapeblue nicolas.vazq...@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
+1 (binding) - I'll add my vote as well. Regards. From: Nicolas Vazquez Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 16:42 To: d...@cloudstack.apache.org ; priv...@cloudstack.apache.org ; users@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project +1 Regards, Nicolas Vazquez From: Rohit Yadav Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 6:05 AM To: d...@cloudstack.apache.org ; priv...@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.ya...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com> 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK @shapeblue nicolas.vazq...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com> 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK @shapeblue rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK @shapeblue
[RESULT][VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project
Hi all, After 120 hours, the vote [1] for accepting codebase of Terraform Provider for CloudStack by the Apache CloudStack project has passed with the following votes: +1 (PMC / binding) 4 persons (Wido, Daan, Boris, Rohit) +1 (non-binding) 5 persons (Nathan, Abhishek, Hari, Suresh, Nicolas) 0 none -1 (non-binding) 1 person (Rene) Thanks to everyone participating. Following this I'll request ASF infra with a new repository: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-terraform-provider have access enabled for all committers/PMC with issues, pull request and wiki features. [1] https://markmail.org/message/26yjsewj4tgq Regards. rohit.ya...@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
+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: "d...@cloudstack.apache.org" , "priv...@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: d...@cloudstack.apache.org ; priv...@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.ya...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com [1] 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK @shapeblue nicolas.vazq...@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
+1 On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 2:06 AM Suresh Anaparti < suresh.anapa...@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" 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.ya...@shapeblue.com > www.shapeblue.com > 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK > @shapeblue > > > > > > suresh.anapa...@shapeblue.com > www.shapeblue.com > 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK > @shapeblue > > > >
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project
Update - I've created the new repository on Github: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-terraform-provider ... and logged request with ASF infra: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21772 Regards. From: Rohit Yadav Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2021 13:05 To: d...@cloudstack.apache.org ; users@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: [RESULT][VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project Hi all, After 120 hours, the vote [1] for accepting codebase of Terraform Provider for CloudStack by the Apache CloudStack project has passed with the following votes: +1 (PMC / binding) 4 persons (Wido, Daan, Boris, Rohit) +1 (non-binding) 5 persons (Nathan, Abhishek, Hari, Suresh, Nicolas) 0 none -1 (non-binding) 1 person (Rene) Thanks to everyone participating. Following this I'll request ASF infra with a new repository: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-terraform-provider have access enabled for all committers/PMC with issues, pull request and wiki features. [1] https://markmail.org/message/26yjsewj4tgq Regards. rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com> 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK @shapeblue rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK @shapeblue
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project
Update - the process has been slow due to getting major contributors to agree on code base relicensing and getting Hashicorp to transfer the repo to its original/major author Sander who now has relicensed the repositories under APLv2: https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack https://github.com/xanzy/go-cloudstack We're in the final process of IP clearance post which the code base will be accepted and available in the following repositories by either a ASF member (Paul has volunteered) or an officer of PMC with suitable permissions: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-terraform-provider https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-go As some may realise there is a new dependency repo (the Go SDK repo) which I'm advised by Sander should go along with the donation as it's used by the Terraform repo and Sander has notified submission of software grants (https://www.apache.org/licenses/contributor-agreements.html#grants) for both the repos. I'll keep the thread open if anyone has any concerns or objections for the additional dependency repo. Regards. Regards, Rohit Yadav From: Rohit Yadav Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2021 1:16:07 PM To: d...@cloudstack.apache.org ; users@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [RESULT][VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project Update - I've created the new repository on Github: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-terraform-provider ... and logged request with ASF infra: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21772 Regards. From: Rohit Yadav Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2021 13:05 To: d...@cloudstack.apache.org ; users@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: [RESULT][VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project Hi all, After 120 hours, the vote [1] for accepting codebase of Terraform Provider for CloudStack by the Apache CloudStack project has passed with the following votes: +1 (PMC / binding) 4 persons (Wido, Daan, Boris, Rohit) +1 (non-binding) 5 persons (Nathan, Abhishek, Hari, Suresh, Nicolas) 0 none -1 (non-binding) 1 person (Rene) Thanks to everyone participating. Following this I'll request ASF infra with a new repository: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-terraform-provider have access enabled for all committers/PMC with issues, pull request and wiki features. [1] https://markmail.org/message/26yjsewj4tgq Regards. rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com> 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK @shapeblue rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com> 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK @shapeblue
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project
All, The IP clearance process has finally passed (https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/5159) and codebase have been imported: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-terraform-provider https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-go As an immediate next step, we need: * Minimal changes/fixes to work towards its first release and publication to Terraform registry for users to use (any RM volunteers?) * I'll request ASF infra to enable Travis and Github issues on these repos. Regards. From: Rohit Yadav Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 21:36 To: d...@cloudstack.apache.org ; users@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [RESULT][VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project Update - the process has been slow due to getting major contributors to agree on code base relicensing and getting Hashicorp to transfer the repo to its original/major author Sander who now has relicensed the repositories under APLv2: https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack https://github.com/xanzy/go-cloudstack We're in the final process of IP clearance post which the code base will be accepted and available in the following repositories by either a ASF member (Paul has volunteered) or an officer of PMC with suitable permissions: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-terraform-provider https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-go As some may realise there is a new dependency repo (the Go SDK repo) which I'm advised by Sander should go along with the donation as it's used by the Terraform repo and Sander has notified submission of software grants (https://www.apache.org/licenses/contributor-agreements.html#grants) for both the repos. I'll keep the thread open if anyone has any concerns or objections for the additional dependency repo. Regards. Regards, Rohit Yadav From: Rohit Yadav Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2021 1:16:07 PM To: d...@cloudstack.apache.org ; users@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [RESULT][VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project Update - I've created the new repository on Github: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-terraform-provider ... and logged request with ASF infra: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21772 Regards. From: Rohit Yadav Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2021 13:05 To: d...@cloudstack.apache.org ; users@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: [RESULT][VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project Hi all, After 120 hours, the vote [1] for accepting codebase of Terraform Provider for CloudStack by the Apache CloudStack project has passed with the following votes: +1 (PMC / binding) 4 persons (Wido, Daan, Boris, Rohit) +1 (non-binding) 5 persons (Nathan, Abhishek, Hari, Suresh, Nicolas) 0 none -1 (non-binding) 1 person (Rene) Thanks to everyone participating. Following this I'll request ASF infra with a new repository: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-terraform-provider have access enabled for all committers/PMC with issues, pull request and wiki features. [1] https://markmail.org/message/26yjsewj4tgq Regards. rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com> 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK @shapeblue rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com> 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK @shapeblue
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project
That's great to know and thanks for all the efforts Rohit. For release management, I would like to volunteer myself for the RM. I'll create the first milestone and propose myself as RM on the mailing list. Regards, Harikrishna From: Rohit Yadav Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 11:58 AM To: d...@cloudstack.apache.org ; users@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [RESULT][VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project All, The IP clearance process has finally passed (https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/5159) and codebase have been imported: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-terraform-provider https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-go As an immediate next step, we need: * Minimal changes/fixes to work towards its first release and publication to Terraform registry for users to use (any RM volunteers?) * I'll request ASF infra to enable Travis and Github issues on these repos. Regards. From: Rohit Yadav Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 21:36 To: d...@cloudstack.apache.org ; users@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [RESULT][VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project Update - the process has been slow due to getting major contributors to agree on code base relicensing and getting Hashicorp to transfer the repo to its original/major author Sander who now has relicensed the repositories under APLv2: https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack https://github.com/xanzy/go-cloudstack We're in the final process of IP clearance post which the code base will be accepted and available in the following repositories by either a ASF member (Paul has volunteered) or an officer of PMC with suitable permissions: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-terraform-provider https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-go As some may realise there is a new dependency repo (the Go SDK repo) which I'm advised by Sander should go along with the donation as it's used by the Terraform repo and Sander has notified submission of software grants (https://www.apache.org/licenses/contributor-agreements.html#grants) for both the repos. I'll keep the thread open if anyone has any concerns or objections for the additional dependency repo. Regards. Regards, Rohit Yadav From: Rohit Yadav Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2021 1:16:07 PM To: d...@cloudstack.apache.org ; users@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [RESULT][VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project Update - I've created the new repository on Github: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-terraform-provider ... and logged request with ASF infra: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21772 Regards. From: Rohit Yadav Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2021 13:05 To: d...@cloudstack.apache.org ; users@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: [RESULT][VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project Hi all, After 120 hours, the vote [1] for accepting codebase of Terraform Provider for CloudStack by the Apache CloudStack project has passed with the following votes: +1 (PMC / binding) 4 persons (Wido, Daan, Boris, Rohit) +1 (non-binding) 5 persons (Nathan, Abhishek, Hari, Suresh, Nicolas) 0 none -1 (non-binding) 1 person (Rene) Thanks to everyone participating. Following this I'll request ASF infra with a new repository: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-terraform-provider have access enabled for all committers/PMC with issues, pull request and wiki features. [1] https://markmail.org/message/26yjsewj4tgq Regards. rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com> 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK @shapeblue rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com> 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK @shapeblue