Timeline for What should we do with questions about Vagrant?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:14 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://serverfault.com/ with https://serverfault.com/
|
|
| Oct 4, 2015 at 20:18 | comment | added | Mikey T.K. | I'd like to substantiate this answer - I've personally used vagrant for quite literally the exact purpose of running CMS system configurations through a battery of tests. | |
| Sep 28, 2015 at 12:59 | comment | added | Mark Henderson StaffMod | @JimB I do not support a blanket ban/migration of any question based solely on its tags and/or technology. Of anything. Even cpanel. I believe that every single question needs to be judged on its own merits. Thus I can't support your plan to "just migrate them to SO". I would suggest migrating them to SO if they fit within SO's boundaries and are off-topic based on SF boundaries - but then and only then. | |
| Sep 28, 2015 at 10:30 | comment | added | Jim B | @erike •managing the hardware or software of servers, workstations, storage or networks •tools used for administering, monitoring, or automating these •deployment to and management of third-party provided information technology platforms if you are interested in looking you'll notice that the mean mention of development, home, or any possible use other than specifically primarily admin use is migrated (and probably why there are over 4k questions on vagrant on SO) you can examine the data here archive.org/details/stackexchange | |
| Sep 27, 2015 at 18:17 | comment | added | ErikE | @JimB if you would then provide the "extremely specific" list of "products owned" by SF? It would simplify all discourse. | |
| Sep 27, 2015 at 18:11 | comment | added | Jim B | @erike unfortunately we've made the decision a long time ago to be extremely specific on what's on topic. I'd be completely happy to start allowing questions that might be of value to a business environment. Instead we've closed or migrated questions that are primarily user or dev oriented regardless of the usage by admins. I'm only looking for consistency. | |
| Sep 27, 2015 at 14:18 | comment | added | ErikE | For the reasons you state, Vagrant is clearly moving fast into sysadmin territory, just like Docker will with the coming of Windows Server 2016 by the sound of it. I don't side with @JimB about a specific site owning a product such as Vagrant with its wide range of application, but rather with Mark in it all being about context. | |
| Sep 24, 2015 at 13:56 | comment | added | Jim B | since we're in agreement which site should own vagrant, I'd suggest we simply move them to SO where the folks that use vagrant tend to gravitate. | |
| Sep 23, 2015 at 17:36 | comment | added | Mark Henderson StaffMod |
@JimB you are correct, which is why I wrote As with most things, looking at the question in-context before making a decisions is the way to go. - I don't support a blanket ban, but I also do not support making anything vagrant on-topic
|
|
| Sep 23, 2015 at 17:25 | comment | added | Jim B | however is "•managing the hardware or software of servers, workstations, storage or networks" something a developer does? I completely agree with your points, my only issue is that most of the time the person using vagrant is not going to be a sysadmin. Remember that on SF we don't talk about bluescreen debugging because users might do that. | |
| Sep 23, 2015 at 12:18 | history | edited | Mark HendersonStaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1014 characters in body
|
| Sep 23, 2015 at 10:36 | history | answered | Mark HendersonStaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |