I think your proposals are ok as an ad-hoc solution to the current situation @Rohit Yadav . I wonder how we should deal with this in the future though.
1. As for the numbering, do we have a procedure to prevent this issue in the future? 2. The provider is part of apache and I think the link https://github.com/apache/terraform-provider-cloudstack should be validated. What exactly is the objection to this? On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 12:05 PM Rohit Yadav <rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com> wrote: > > All, > > The recent Terraform provider release v0.5.0 has a problem with the Terraform > registry website. > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-terraform-provider/issues/109 > > The registry support isn't able to provide a resolution now, their manual > resync button on the provider isn't fixing the issue. > > While I've documented the steps for manually installing and using the > provider. Most terraform/tofu users are used to consuming a provider from the > registry. > > If there are no objections, I propose that we just tag the current version as > v0.5.1 and push it on the registry for the purpose of publishing on the > registry website. We may need not do a formal vote for this as code wise > nothing has changed and we can make this tag to be a community release tag > solely done for the purpose of having a workaround on the registry website > https://registry.terraform.io/providers/cloudstack/cloudstack/latest which > gets published via > https://github.com/cloudstack/terraform-provider-cloudstack as the registry > also has a strict repo naming policy (due to which it can't use the repo > under Apache org). > > Thoughts? > > Regards. > > > -- Daan
