auster

use, too; I wrote a gem, which this reminds me that I need to open source, that lets me roll out a standardized three-tier network of varying size (important because AWS tends to work best with /24 subnets but hey, you might want more than three of them per tier) without really thinking about it too hard. (Back when Terraform was new, I tried writing a halfway decent DSL on top of it; turns out "it's really just JSON under the hood" was untrue and no testing had been done on that path. I assume it has since. But HCL still exists, and HCL is still pretty awful.) I would say not to use Terraform if you're using only AWS, because Terraform has a nice habit of hosing your state when you look at it funny and I've had it literally regress to the point of making states in version X unreadable in version X+1. But those issues are separate from the clunky DSL. [0] - https://github.com/seanedwards/cfer [1] - https://github.com/eropple/auster

eaky. It's not worth the fight. We have a lot of clients who say they want to be multi-cloud, they say they're afraid of being locked into AWS or GCE, and in practice nobody except the supermassive companies out there ever actually do move between them. To that end, we pretty much standardized on using the platform-specific options: CloudFormation, Azure Resource Manager, and Google Cloud Deployment Manager. (There is a small argument to some of the ancillary services that Terraform can wire up, but to be honest I rarely find a compelling reason to put up with Terraform and its lovely habit of fragging my state in order to wire those up declaratively rather than using a little imperative glue within Auster[0] to do it.) [0] - https://github.com/eropple/auster

ing is that each component handles its own business and so there aren't many vertical concerns.) CI secret access isn't a thing in the systems I develop (unit tests don't need them, integration tests get a spun-up environment that provisions its own secrets), but you could provide access with a bog-standard token machine. [1] https://github.com/fugue/credstash [2] https://github.com/codahale/sneaker [3] https://github.com/eropple/auster

more a method of risk management than altruism. > I consider not paying forward kindnesses paid to you way, way more unfair and unreasonable. Paying forward kindness and being morally obligated to maintain an open source library just because you use it are different things in my mind. It seems like being paid a kindness creates an obligation, which is not that nice. --- Interesting perspective even though I strongly disagree. I'll continue to use open source projects 'AS IS'[0] and I still wont feel morally obligated to maintain them. Similar to how I use linux/BSD and don't feel obligated to maintain the kernel. I'm certainly grateful of course, but I don't feel like there was any sort of contract/exchange between myself and the maintainers that creates an obligation on my part. [0] https://github.com/eropple/auster/blob/master/LICENSE.txt

se it, too, is the right thing to do. You should do likewise, because it is the decent and human thing to do. > That doesn't seem fair or reasonable. I consider not paying forward kindnesses paid to you way, way more unfair and unreasonable. [1] - https://github.com/bossmodecg [2] - https://github.com/eropple/auster [3] - https://github.com/eropple/cfer-provisioning