- did brew install pulumi, installed 1.0.0 , running it keeps nagging about brew upgrade to 1.0.1
- I wonder if there is a phone-home option, then it needs an optional opt-out
- I'd expect
pulumi init
instead of new - pulumi needs documentation on the bootstrap for the state bucket (correct permissions)
- pulumi login defaults to the saas platform, and says alternative logins available. not too clear , a select local would be nice
- also the path where is stores the files should be asked for during installation
- pulumi new --secrets-provider=passphrase (default I assume) has no way to initialize the secret from the CLI (like reading it from stdin or file)
- why is
bin
in .gitignore (because typescript compiles in ./bin) - should have README with a good documentation template, like params to set
- removing a stack doesn't really remove it , it makes it a
.bak
file , and they are still under backups and checkpoints - why are the templates under
.pulumi
? will they change on updates? can I use change them myself? - I didn't get plan = preview and apply = up is both ; still missing a binary compiled plan for later execution
- It seem to be missing a concurrency/lock mechanism to avoid run/change conflicts (compiled plans helped there in TF)
- properly name spacing stacks makes sense to avoid conflicts with same state
- pulumi stack requires aws access, no local state aparently of a stack
- wonder how you can change the secret of the passphrase provider later
- stackname use the name entered of the project during pulumi new
Pulumi.yaml
- plugins are downloaded on first use, can you run this step before to avoid log pollution?
- when I run an empty stack , why does it want to run/create something?
- why create stack signed url perma-links? security I don't like it
- why is it creating stack yaml files in my project directory (maybe I once did a login to this file:// dir, but then removed all .pulimi)
- I miss the good structure of resource documentation like terraform has
- suprised vpc is under aws.ec2
- vs code does code completion but doesn't have a good struct of a new resource snippet
- wonder how I can do a data resource like in terraform
- from a coding perspective , I miss a sort of run or build action ; it's strange that just by using a constructor of a class things get executed
- pulumi login seems to be global, for files you can probably specify other pathsm but there is no env settings to change this easily
- pulumi stack names are global, not per project/customer, maybe .pulumirc to override?
- a stack name may only contain alphanumeric, hyphens, underscores, or periods, warning should be before entering a name
- no slashes means no directory name spacing in s3
- wonder what .pulumi/workspaces are
- why do I need a binary install? why not just have the bin installed with npm install?
- how will I be able to run multi version pulumi
- how do you debug/interactively
- stackreference is like remote state in terraform
- can you have multiple entrypoint into a project (only up subpart of a stack)
- better examples on complex structure (like lib/)
- tests are currently not real tests but only run after runtime provisioning
- renaming a stack was kinda clunky (need to recheck)
- refactoring custom resources will have no impact on the dependent resources
- autonaming (appending random string) s3 bucket - default should be exact, not the other way around
- pulumi needs a proper hashtag that is not poluted
- remote state , how about readonly access?
I believe it's actually the opposite - it can only be provided via the prompt on stdin - and cannot be provided in a command line argument. Curious what specific approach you expected/wanted that wasn't supported?
This is actually an artifact of an old approach Pulumi used where TypeScript compilation was done separately (into a
bin
folder). Now it is done on-demand within Node.js into a temp folder. So this is likely unnecessary for folks who use the default, but is still useful for folks who choose to opt out of this per https://www.pulumi.com/docs/intro/languages/javascript/#disabling-built-in-typescript-support.Do you mean in the templates themselves? That's a good idea - though we've generally wanted to keep these as light as possible (there are already more files than we'd like - just due to the needs of NPM, TypeScript, etc.). Our expectation is that users will quickly change the contents of these templates - so any README about the details of the specific template would quickly be unhelpful. Was there anything in particular you had hoped to see there that wasn't already clear from the source code?