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

Feature proposal: Workspaces #78

Closed
1 of 5 tasks
ChrisLahaye opened this issue Jul 2, 2019 · 1 comment
Closed
1 of 5 tasks

Feature proposal: Workspaces #78

ChrisLahaye opened this issue Jul 2, 2019 · 1 comment
Labels
management/rfc status/stale The RFC did not get any significant enough progress or tracking and has become stale.

Comments

@ChrisLahaye
Copy link

  • I'm submitting a ...

    • πŸͺ² bug report
    • πŸš€ feature request
    • πŸ“š construct library gap
    • ☎️ security issue or vulnerability => Please see policy
    • ❓ support request => Please see note at the top of this template.
  • What is the current behavior?
    When I deploy I need to state every stack explicitly. I have multiple stacks and environments, so I need to be really careful that I included every stack and that each stack is of the correct environment.

  • What is the expected behavior (or behavior of feature suggested)?
    When I deploy I want to state the name of an encapsulation of multiple stacks. Terraform for example has the concept of workspaces. The CDK should ease working with multiple stacks and environments. An option would be for example to parse a yaml file containing named groups of stacks, also allowing assertions on AWS account.

  • What is the motivation / use case for changing the behavior or adding this feature?
    Improving user experience, eliminating user error

@eladb
Copy link
Contributor

eladb commented Jan 23, 2020

This is a very interesting idea. I am transferring this to the RFC repo. Please follow the RFC Repo README in order to submit this as an RFC.

@eladb eladb transferred this issue from aws/aws-cdk Jan 23, 2020
@eladb eladb unassigned eladb and shivlaks Jan 23, 2020
@ChrisLahaye ChrisLahaye closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Jan 5, 2023
@mrgrain mrgrain added status/stale The RFC did not get any significant enough progress or tracking and has become stale. and removed status/proposed Newly proposed RFC labels Oct 27, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
management/rfc status/stale The RFC did not get any significant enough progress or tracking and has become stale.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants