You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Ironfan v3 had a (somewhat magic) Vagrant implementation. Given that Vagrant now has the beginnings of underlying provider abstraction, it appears to remain the correct choice for a local VM provider, rather than going direct to the underlying providers (Virtualbox, VMware Fusion, etc.).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Looking at fog it supports virtualboxvmfusionvsphere and xenserver for virtual machines; so is there any real need for vagrant? Furthermore, vagrant's machine abstraction is still hard-coded to virtualbox because there's no config structure for anything else; and no real plans for how to implement these, at present.
Fog provides stable abstractions that we're already familiar with, and covers much ground
Vagrant has only recently added its abstractions, and is a user-focused tool (rather than a library)
We would be trading a well-known and broadly applicable but leaky abstraction, for an unknown and immature abstraction with only one target and intended for a different use-case.
Unfortunately, it's paused behind paying work. If you know of a company who could sponsor this as a feature, let me know; that can bump it's priority quite a bit.
Ironfan v3 had a (somewhat magic) Vagrant implementation. Given that Vagrant now has the beginnings of underlying provider abstraction, it appears to remain the correct choice for a local VM provider, rather than going direct to the underlying providers (Virtualbox, VMware Fusion, etc.).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: