foundation VS digger

A mature open source project may be governed under an open source foundation which usually gives it a charter https://github.com/cncf/foundation/blob/main/charter.md#3-va...

... and/or set of values: https://kubernetes.io/community/values/

There's also a lot of open source guides here https://todogroup.org/resources/guides/ that may help you if you're looking at building mature open source projects.

The CNCF has made exceptions on their license policy before, specifically for MPL based software. It'll probably be easier for OpenTF to go through that process than to relicense (which is likely not even possible for anyone other than Hashicorp).

- https://github.com/cncf/foundation/tree/main/license-excepti...

- https://github.com/cncf/foundation/blob/main/license-excepti...

Your comment or post were removed for violating the CNCF Code of Conduct. Please take a moment to review that here: https://github.com/cncf/foundation/blob/master/code-of-conduct.md

His behavior offends me as a professional software engineer and/ in my opinion, violates CNCF Code of Conduct https://github.com/cncf/foundation/blob/master/code-of-conduct.md.

Anyone can become a member. Non-profit as in https://github.com/cncf/foundation/blob/master/charter.md

Read more about role of the CNCF, their projects and Values here.

https://github.com/cncf/foundation/blob/master/allowed-third...

I haven't read the details, or ever seen this policy before (I'm new to both projects) but it was summarized by one of our counterparts at the Linux Foundation here:

https://twitter.com/cra/status/1384859663615864833

Tl;dr: licenses must be approved for use, and the CNCF has this list of allowed licenses, AGPL is not on it. The CNCF is in the business of distributing permissively-licensed software is the short version I guess. I don't understand, I don't work on the legal side, I am a dev and I support end users.

It seems if your Apache 2.0 licensed project needs to modify and distribute as modified Grafana, which it seems likely we will need to do at some point, then you cannot distribute them together. Chris says they are going to work something out, but when a component has made a decision to re-license with a restrictive-copyleft license such as AGPL, I don't know what there is that can be done.

Maybe the CNCF adopts AGPL too, (which would mean that then all those "viral-GPL" FUD-spreaders will have been right...) that seems counter-productive if that is the outcome.

None of these are a replacement of Terraform Cloud (recently rebranded to HCP Terraform). For example, when you create a PR, it could affect multiple workspaces. The new experimental version of TFC/TFE (I refuse to call it HCP!) implements Stacks, which is something like a workflow, and links one workspace output to other workspace inputs. None of the open-source solutions, including the paid Digger [0], support this - only the paid one, such as Spacelift [1] (which is the closest to TFC if you ask me). Having a monorepo of Terraform is a common design pattern, so, if I change an embedded module, it could trigger changes it many workspaces. As far as I know, Atlantis [2] can't really help in this case.

By the way, the reason I singled-out Spacelift is due to its quality, and the great Terraform provider it has. Scalr [3], for example, has a really low-quality Terraform provider. I extensively use the hashicorp/tfe provider to manage TFC itself.

[0]: https://digger.dev/

[1]: https://spacelift.io/

[2]: https://www.runatlantis.io/

[3]: https://www.scalr.com/

Currently, Github Actions is de-facto the only fully supported CI platform in Digger, we’ve been building it as a CI-agnostic tool (https://github.com/diggerhq/digger) from get go. We keep getting requests to support more CI systems on our community slack and over Github issues (https://github.com/diggerhq/digger/issues/81).

Unlike other automation tools for Terraform, Digger doesn’t run jobs on the server; instead it uses your CI (like Actions) as a compute backend. This is more secure and also much cheaper if you use your own runners in your CI.

But each CI and each VCS is ever so slightly different; and we are now at a crossroads - Should we build support for more CI platforms, or more features for GitHub Actions? We’d love any thoughts/inputs!

We just had a user submit an issue and a PR to revert the changes we made earlier that remove the option to disable telemetry. We feel like it’s a fair ask to share usage data with authors of an open-source tool that’s early in the making; but the user’s viewpoint is also perfectly understandable. Are we in the wrong here?

https://github.com/diggerhq/digger/issues/1179

Surely we aren’t the first open-source company to face this dilemma. We don’t want to alienate the community; but losing visibility of usage doesn’t sound great either. Give people the “more privacy” button and most are going to press it. Is there a happy medium?

Detecting and managing drift in Terraform is a multifaceted process. The use of Terraform commands such as terraform refresh and terraform plan plays a critical role in identifying drifts. Additionally, periodic monitoring of the infrastructure using these commands can aid in early detection and prevention of larger issues. Tools like Digger and Terraform Cloud offer dedicated drift detection and remediation mechanisms. These tools provide continuous monitoring and notifications, enabling teams to stay informed about the state of their infrastructure.

Star us on GitHub | Check out Docs | Blog | Slack

I would be extremely grateful if you could give us a star & share your thoughts in the comments section below https://github.com/diggerhq/digger

Check Digger's repo on GitHub

Digger is an Open Source Infrastructure as Code management tool that helps orchestrate IaC such as Terraform & OpenTofu within GitHub Actions. Digger reuses compute used for application code so that you don't overpay for 3rd party managed compute for IaC. This approach eliminates the duplication of CI/CD infrastructure such as compute, jobs, and logs, and reduces security concerns by keeping sensitive data within the CI job. Digger's integration with existing CI systems offers scalability by leveraging on-demand compute resources and enhances security by confining data within the existing CI environment.

Digger is an Open Source IaC management platform that allows you to orchestrate terraform/OpenTofu in your CI/CD system. It helps you resue async jobs infrastructure with compute, orchestration, logs, etc of your existing CI. Digger also has a pro version built on top of Digger’s community edition. Digger’s “bring your own compute” ensures that users have private runners by defualt and don’t have to pay for it additionally. Digger pro gives team leads, managers and IaC practitioners dashboards, Drift Detection, RBAC via OPA policies and concurrency so they can help guide the team.

We have this issue filed by a user and cannot quite decide internally what to do about it. It is clear that allowing everyone who comments to trigger apply is problematic. And we have this covered by the RBAC via OPA feature that allows users to set granular rego policies for who can do what. But it can also be viewed as an overkill to introduce the whole policy-as-code setup for a basic restriction like this.