3 ms·
I can understand the fear/confusion here. "vagrant push" is glue to real deployment tools. For example, Vagrant itself would never itself contain the full logic
by mitchellh 12y ago
I can understand the fear/confusion here. "vagrant push" is glue to real deployment tools. For example, Vagrant itself would never itself contain the full logic of something like Capistrano. But "vagrant push" will _execute_ Capistrano.
The idea is that Vagrant is a single workflow for development environments. "vagrant up" to work on any application, "vagrant share" to collaborate on any application, "vagrant push" to deploy (or start to deploy) any application.
EDIT: @ossreality: Your comments are showing up as dead. But I want to respond to you. As I mentioned here, `vagrant push` is glue to real deployment tools. How are you deploying your complex application now? You would hook up `vagrant push` to that. "vagrant push" itself is not a deployment framework.
- ossreality 12y agoHow does this work for any real project of any real size? Our service is a mirage. It's comprised of half a dozen microservices, most of which are developed one-at-a-time, but which must all be deployed in order to be a functional real end-service.
- ossreality 12y agoHow does this work for any real project of any real size? Our service is a mirage. It's comprised of half a dozen microservices, most of which are developed one-at-a-time, but which must all be deployed in order to be a functional real end-service.
- kasabali 12y agoThanks Michell! I was worried Vagrant started heading in a different direction especially after reading the "This is a historic day for Vagrant" paragraph. Thanks for clearing it up.