Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

backend/remote: use state.v2 for remote state only #20379

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 20, 2019

Conversation

svanharmelen
Copy link
Contributor

@svanharmelen svanharmelen commented Feb 18, 2019

The API surface area is much smaller when we use the remote backend for remote state only.

So in order to try and prevent any backwards incompatibilities when TF runs inside of TFE, we’ve split up the discovery services into state.v2 (which can be used for remote state only configurations, so when running in TFE) and tfe.v2.1 (which can be used for all remote configurations).

The API surface area is much smaller when we use the remote backend for remote state only.

So in order to try and prevent any backwards incompatibilities when TF runs inside of TFE, we’ve split up the discovery services into `state.v2` (which can be used for remote state only configurations, so when running in TFE) and `tfe.v2.1` (which can be used for all remote configurations).
@svanharmelen svanharmelen changed the title backend/remote: use state.v1 for remote state only backend/remote: use state.v2 for remote state only Feb 19, 2019
@svanharmelen svanharmelen merged commit 43eb7c0 into master Feb 20, 2019
@svanharmelen svanharmelen deleted the svh/f-state-service branch February 20, 2019 09:48
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Mar 29, 2020

I'm going to lock this issue because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active issues.

If you have found a problem that seems similar to this, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further.

@ghost ghost locked and limited conversation to collaborators Mar 29, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants