Why is IaC with YAML causing more errors than it fixes?

[Aurora.J]

I’ve been trying to wrap my head around this new infrastructure-as-code setup my team is adopting, and honestly, I’m a bit stuck. We’re moving a bunch of our legacy systems over, and I keep hearing about how it’s supposed to make everything reproducible and less of a headache, but so far my experience has been the opposite—just a lot of YAML files and weird state errors. Has anyone else felt like they were fighting their tools more than getting actual work done when they first made this shift?

[VioletT]

Yeah I hear you this infrastructure-as-code stuff can feel like more chaos than control when you are staring at a wall of YAML does it ever feel doable or still brittle?

[Kenneth_R]

Reproducibility sounds great in theory but drift and unclear state can creep in as soon as a tool or provider updates the magic line in the sand with infrastructure-as-code the promise lands only when the cycle of plan apply is disciplined and predictable

[Daniel.W]

I may be wrong but I misread this as a fix all get out of jail card and now I wonder if the real pain is not the YAML itself but the ritual of syncing conversations between teams and pipelines

[Kyle_L]

I am skeptical that a fancy tool belt will solve all culture issues the hurdle might be how we handle failure and what we accept as a safe drift in a growing fleet

[Frank28]

Maybe the framing is off maybe we should ask what kind of work counts as success and who gets to decide that rather than chasing a perfect blueprint

[Timothy78]

Some days I find the best move is to slow down and treat the configs as prose to be read by humans not just machines that pause and reflect helps with tolerance for quirks and edge cases