Terraform 0.12.0-alpha2 #50781
Merged
Terraform 0.12.0-alpha2 #50781
+13
−223
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
GrahamcOfBorg
added
8.has: package (new)
|
Success on x86_64-darwin (full log) Attempted: terraform, terraform_0_12 Partial log (click to expand)
|
|
Success on x86_64-linux (full log) Attempted: terraform, terraform_0_12 Partial log (click to expand)
|
|
Failure on aarch64-linux (full log) Attempted: terraform, terraform_0_12 Partial log (click to expand)
|
Mic92
reviewed
Nov 19, 2018
| @@ -22593,11 +22593,12 @@ with pkgs; | |||
| terraform_0_10-full | |||
| terraform_0_11 | |||
| terraform_0_11-full | |||
| terraform_0_12 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Adding new versions is fine, but what about removing old ones?
I don't see terraform maintaining previous releases so we should also limit the amounts of versions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree. Since 0.12 is actually functionally different we'll probably want to keep 0.11 around for a while after the fact, but the earlier ones are probably disposable. I do remember @shlevy having some use case for even earlier versions but I don't know if he still does.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
agreed, deleted a bunch of old versions with associated dependants
There was a problem hiding this comment.
actually even 0.10 should be safe to delete, there hasn't been any backward-incompatible changes in 0.11
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agreed from my standpoint, I'd just make sure that @shlevy doesn't have some weird corner case because I do recall him saying he had a reason to keep the older one around.
The rest of the PR seems fine to me, thanks!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK to delete some of the old ones. We ran into cases where TF was updating quickly and breaking backwards compat but certainly the oldest ones can be removed now. We're using 0.11 currently IIRC.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Alright, deleting 0.10 as well
These are very old and blocking cleaning old terraform releases
zimbatm
force-pushed
the
terraform_0_12-alpha
branch
from
e5ecec3 to
098c192
Compare
|
Success on x86_64-linux (full log) Attempted: terraform, terraform_0_12, terragrunt Partial log (click to expand)
|
|
Success on x86_64-darwin (full log) Attempted: terraform, terraform_0_12 The following builds were skipped because they don't evaluate on x86_64-darwin: terragrunt Partial log (click to expand)
|
|
Failure on aarch64-linux (full log) Attempted: terraform, terraform_0_12, terragrunt Partial log (click to expand)
|
zimbatm
force-pushed
the
terraform_0_12-alpha
branch
from
098c192 to
6529d91
Compare
|
Success on x86_64-darwin (full log) Attempted: terraform, terraform_0_12 The following builds were skipped because they don't evaluate on x86_64-darwin: terragrunt Partial log (click to expand)
|
providers are already compiled independently so we don't need Hydra to follow terraform_MAJ_MIN_full to have them all compiled. Instead of having to create two aliases per release, add a "full" passthru for that common use-case. Eg: terraform_0_11_full -> terraform_0_11.full
|
Success on x86_64-linux (full log) Attempted: terraform, terraform_0_12, terragrunt Partial log (click to expand)
|
|
Failure on aarch64-linux (full log) Attempted: terraform, terraform_0_12, terragrunt Partial log (click to expand)
|
zimbatm
force-pushed
the
terraform_0_12-alpha
branch
from
6529d91 to
85e9542
Compare
|
Success on x86_64-linux (full log) Attempted: terraform, terraform_0_12, terragrunt Partial log (click to expand)
|
|
Success on x86_64-darwin (full log) Attempted: terraform, terraform_0_12 The following builds were skipped because they don't evaluate on x86_64-darwin: terragrunt Partial log (click to expand)
|
zimbatm
force-pushed
the
terraform_0_12-alpha
branch
from
85e9542 to
e28d314
Compare
|
Failure on aarch64-linux (full log) Attempted: terraform, terraform_0_12, terragrunt Partial log (click to expand)
|
|
Success on x86_64-darwin (full log) Attempted: terraform, terraform_0_12 The following builds were skipped because they don't evaluate on x86_64-darwin: terragrunt Partial log (click to expand)
|
|
Success on x86_64-linux (full log) Attempted: terraform, terraform_0_12, terragrunt Partial log (click to expand)
|
|
Failure on aarch64-linux (full log) Attempted: terraform, terraform_0_12, terragrunt Partial log (click to expand)
|
|
Thanks for doing this! |
|
Is it intentional that |
|
Is it intentional that `nix-env -u` switches me from terraform 0.11 to this pre-release package?
That's how Nix version comparison works, but that's probably not
intentional. I believe, the pre-release package should have been given a
distinct name (e.g., `terraform-unstable`).
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Motivation for this change
test terraform 0.12 before it's released
Things done
sandboxinnix.confon non-NixOS)nix-shell -p nox --run "nox-review wip"./result/bin/)nix path-info -Sbefore and after)