On 2015-05-31 13:01:54, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: > Hi, Hi Martin,
> If we want to provide a vagrant box, that is an official image, i think > our users will expect any of those provisioning providers to work out of > the box. > > Thus including those into the vagrant default box makes sense. > > Cheers, > Martin, who is a heavy user of vagrant at work! Honestly I do not know anybody who is using vagrant boxes without any additional configuration. All people I know messing around with them. So I think having minimal base and allow users to build on top of it is a good thing. I also have to agree that having base minimal box and multiply boxes with different provisioners is having lots of sense; only problem with it may be maintenance overhead but as Jan wrote this can be overcome with automated build process. Cheers, Marcin, who is a heavy user of vagrant at work as well :-) -- |_|0|_| | |_|_|0| "Heghlu'Meh QaQ jajVam" | |0|0|0| -------- kuLa --------- | gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 0x58C338B3 3DF1 A4DF C732 4688 38BC F121 6869 30DD 58C3 38B3
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
