terraform-ls VS foundation

Marcin here, one of the OpenTF folks

This repo [0] seems to still be licensed under MPL, so there is no need for an immediate action, but if there is a willingness in the community to take it over and improve, I see no reason why we wouldn't do it.

[0] https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-ls

For example my other issue with simple click through URLs to resource documentation pages, this would be a simple solution if the resource documentation URL formatting was done to a standard with the resource names.

I have followed this guide: https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-ls/blob/main/docs/USAGE.md

As /u/fridgedigga, neither LSP implements renaming. The LSP spec can be found here. I don't know how all of this is wired up. At a minimum, you'll need to add a mapping in service.go and handler. The bulk of work is performed in the handlers.

Look at terraform-ls vs terraform-lsp. Both can be used with coc.nvim.

For the LSP, I have never heard of Terraform before but it looks like they have a section on using it with vim/neovim. Not sure if this is already part of what you have tried, but I can't really help more since I have never used it.

This worked, thank you! I found all the cli options here for anyone that needs them.

https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-ls

These are both fairly limited but you can see every editor (except intellij) uses this under the hood.

I've used them at companies with 300+ terraform repos and have never had much of an issue navigating/understanding TF through Vim.

So, what happens when you run the server from command line and then open your file in Kate? Any difference? Also, is there any command argument for logging and/or debugging the terraform-ls? It might help to find the issue, if any. I found this from the docs.

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.

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