Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Vagrant 2.0

hashicorp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 120 posts

Re: Vagrant 2.0

#21

Post by acranox »

randlet wrote: post #3
sciurus wrote: post #2

Does the major version bump signify any major changes? The blog post and changelog don't seem to describe any.

"Vagrant 1.0 was released in 2013 as a stable release. Vagrant 1.0 only supported VirtualBox as a provider, only supported a handful of Linux operating systems as guests, and supported a simple up/destroy workflow. Since Vagrant 1.0, we've added support for multi-providers such as VMware and Docker, guests such as Windows, macOS, and complex workflows including snapshots. These major changes are followed by hundreds…

I think the person you replied to was asking about major changes from the last 1.x release, to v2.0. Of which, there don't appear to be any major ones.

Re: Vagrant 2.0

#22

Post by mitchellh »

jimmar wrote: post #4

Just from the version number I thought there'd be a few major changes, but really it just seems like another point release that happens to increment the major version number. (Which is totally fine by me. I rely on Vagrant a lot and I'm glad the new version doesn't introduce breaking changes). Change log is here: https://github.com/mitchellh/vagrant/blob/v2.0.0/CHANGELOG.m...

Its a focus on stability and we don't want you to be thinking about Vagrant either when you upgrade. We just want it to work. :)

However, I want to be clear its not a marketing tactic in any way (re: hosh below, with an excellent comment!). It ends up being that implicitly but we waited and developed Vagrant 1.x for 5 years prior to calling it a 2.0 because we had a lot of goals we wanted to achieve: multi-provider, fantastic Windows support, stable installers, etc. We feel we've now achieved that in a very stable way, so its time to call it 2.0.

This breakpoint for us allows us to begin planning and executing on larger changes. Of course, we'll do all of this thoughtfully since Vagrant is definitely a tool you want to "just work" today and not think about breaking your envs. I admit this does happen from time to time though and I'm sorry about that, but we're getting better.

Re: Vagrant 2.0

#23

Post by bpicolo »

eropple wrote: post #17
bpicolo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? Can you not install whatever you want with Vagrant? https://rvm.io/integration/vagrant

Wrong way around. Hashicorp decided to release Vagrant as an omnibus installer that packages an embedded Ruby, which (apparently? I haven't checked, I'm going off the earlier post) isn't Ruby 2.4. They also killed off the gem-distributed version--which is still, to this day, a huge pain in the rear, to the point where I build my own Vagrant so it doesn't use its own weird out-of-the-way Ruby.

Ah, gotcha

Re: Vagrant 2.0

#24

Post by moondev »

mateuszf wrote: post #19
wuunderbar wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vagrant lets you provision in a codified manner full-fledge VMs. This code can be pulled down by your developers to deploy a development environment on their machines. Inside of this you can choose to run containers of your apps with proper tooling built around it.

Can't you do the same thing with docker, docker compose?

No, because containers are processes not vms.

Re: Vagrant 2.0

#25

Post by dahdum »

KZeillmann wrote: post #11

What's the use case where I'd want to use Vagrant instead of Docker?

It's great for complex apps with multiple dependencies, but if you plan on never needing full VMs likely not worth it.

I'm used to liberally using crontab, iptable rules, multiple languages, and not deploying separate containers / vms if I need something like Redis. For some of them I'd end up with 6-8 containers if I went that route.

Re: Vagrant 2.0

#26

Post by erikb »

Not to pull down the emotions here, but if the whole blog post is not saying more than "Hashicorp Vagrant 2.0" I doubt that there will be some meaningful content in that version. Was Vagrant bought by Hashicorp or something? Why not announce that?

Re: Vagrant 2.0

#27

Post by Goopplesoft »

erikb wrote: post #26

Not to pull down the emotions here, but if the whole blog post is not saying more than "Hashicorp Vagrant 2.0" I doubt that there will be some meaningful content in that version. Was Vagrant bought by Hashicorp or something? Why not announce that?

It is owned by Hashicorp. Hashicorp was a company built around Vagrant initially.

Re: Vagrant 2.0

#28

Post by dugmartin »

erikb wrote: post #26

Not to pull down the emotions here, but if the whole blog post is not saying more than "Hashicorp Vagrant 2.0" I doubt that there will be some meaningful content in that version. Was Vagrant bought by Hashicorp or something? Why not announce that?

Mitchell Hashimoto created Vagrant - he is the "Hashi" in Hashicorp (https://www.hashicorp.com/blog/announcing-hashicorp/)

Re: Vagrant 2.0

#29

Post by geerlingguy »

Since many people are still not too familiar with Vagrant (it doesn't seem to have the cachet of Docker for local dev environments), here are a few example Vagrant configurations that I use to build different servers for local testing/debugging: https://github.com/geerlingguy/ansible-vagrant-examples

There are plenty of other great examples of Vagrant usage around the web, too, from Laravel's Homestead to (disclosure, I maintain it) Drupal VM.

It seems a lot of older applications / communities migrate towards Vagrant as some of the things they do are harder (or at least not as straightforward yet) to implement in containers.

Re: Vagrant 2.0

#30

Post by thrownhwn »

Anybody know if they has code-signed their Windows and macOS binaries with 2.0?

It's a shame so many "core" developer tools are not code-signed. It makes life hard in companies where binary whitelisting is used.

Post reply on HN