Let me explain why we’re not talking about an 80/20 split.
There’s no reason to treat something like a route53 record, or security group rule, in the same way that you treat the creation of IAM Policies/Roles and their associated attachments.
If you create a common interface for your engineers/auditors, using real primitives like the idea of a firewall rule, you’ve made it easy for everyone to avoid learning the idiosyncrasies of each deployment target, and feel empowered to write their own merge requests, or review the intended state of a given deployment target.
If you need to do something provider-specific, make a provider-specific module.
Let me explain why we’re not talking about an 80/20 split.
There’s no reason to treat something like a route53 record, or security group rule, in the same way that you treat the creation of IAM Policies/Roles and their associated attachments.
If you create a common interface for your engineers/auditors, using real primitives like the idea of a firewall rule, you’ve made it easy for everyone to avoid learning the idiosyncrasies of each deployment target, and feel empowered to write their own merge requests, or review the intended state of a given deployment target.
If you need to do something provider-specific, make a provider-specific module.