Vagrant cloud pp config #8519
Merged
Vagrant cloud pp config #8519
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
SwampDragons
force-pushed
the
bagrant_cloud_pp_config
branch
from
208d186 to
b23425f
Compare
SwampDragons
added
post-processor/vagrant-cloud
tech-debt
|
I'm going to lock this issue because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active issues. If you have found a problem that seems similar to this, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further. |
ghost
locked and limited conversation to collaborators
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Most of packer uses *configs so that they can be written back to. Makes sense to enforce this for postprocessors too.
On another note, I suspect that the config for the vagrant cloud pp can be removed from state altogether if we are better about passing variables to steps. This is something that would be an easy first task for a Packer contributor.
Related: #8520