11–20 of 81 posts
Isn't this what Partner ID is designed for? "Injects" is a strong word. Maybe "Hashicorp provides an Azure Partner ID in Terraform deployments for deployment stats, and some users may not want that" would be a better title.
They very clearly allow it to be changed in a config; and I'm willing to bet my socks that Azure is not giving Hashicorp 'deployment structure' information based on a partner id.
Isn't this what Partner ID is designed for? "Injects" is a strong word. Maybe "Hashicorp provides an Azure Partner ID in Terraform deployments for deployment stats, and some users may not want that" would be a better title.
Exactly. They very clearly allow it to be changed in a config; and I'm willing to bet my socks that Azure is not giving Hashicorp 'deployment structure' information based on a partner id.
From Microsoft documentation:
This program will allow ISVs who deploy their software on an Azure customer’s infrastructure an opportunity to get credit for the impact of their software.
The data generated by the Azure ISV Customer Usage Attribution program will be used for ISV partners to qualify for partner programs by providing a automated method of linking a customers usage to the ISVs software.
ISV partners will receive reporting for deployments from the Azure ISV Customer Usage Attribution program. Data may be anonymized for deployments from outside of Azure Marketplace. Reporting will be made available in the Cloud Publisher Portal, the same platform where GUIDs will be registered and partners can configure and manage listings for Azure Marketplace.
Isn't this what Partner ID is designed for? "Injects" is a strong word. Maybe "Hashicorp provides an Azure Partner ID in Terraform deployments for deployment stats, and some users may not want that" would be a better title.
I wonder how much the outraged individual has contributed financially to what is a fabulous tool that all DevOps engineers benefit directly from. I get that it should have been discussed, but even still - the code is there for all to see and read whenever they can be bothered too. They can even fork and build it without this. It's this level of open source snobbery that makes me think that eventually only the big com…
Edit: cleaned up the wording a bit by removing the "raise a concern" bit. Hopefully that removes any ambiguity in the comment.
I love Terraform and in general Hashicorp but this is not acceptable. Changes like these should be discussed with the community first. They should also state clearly what information they are getting from Microsoft. Azure docs on this is way too generic and filled with "maybes".
Hashicorp is kinda well known for not engaging with community whatsoever :)
I wonder how much the outraged individual has contributed financially to what is a fabulous tool that all DevOps engineers benefit directly from. I get that it should have been discussed, but even still - the code is there for all to see and read whenever they can be bothered too. They can even fork and build it without this. It's this level of open source snobbery that makes me think that eventually only the big com…
This sets a dangerous precedent. You shouldn't need to contribute financially to file an issue about an open source product you use. Edit: cleaned up the wording a bit by removing the "raise a concern" bit. Hopefully that removes any ambiguity in the comment.
Are you kidding me? This is literally the mechanism to provide feedback to the contributors.
How is this different than a web server reporting itself as Jetty? Or a web browser repotting it’s Chrome?
I wonder how much the outraged individual has contributed financially to what is a fabulous tool that all DevOps engineers benefit directly from. I get that it should have been discussed, but even still - the code is there for all to see and read whenever they can be bothered too. They can even fork and build it without this. It's this level of open source snobbery that makes me think that eventually only the big com…
> the code is there for all to see and read whenever they can be bothered too.
This is exactly what this developer is doing.
> open source snobbery
I also don't read any snobbery in their PR. They found a genuine problem. They have actual security concerns with this behavior.