[joesmo]

I would consider using it again if I really had to for more than just quickly testing a VM, but to be honest, after wasting days with problems (which the vagrant team is aware of) and then having it fail again and again, I'm not very inclined to. I can see why vagrant encourages a workflow where one destroys the VMs regularly as that would likely avoid a ton of issues at the expense of time wasted.

My VMWare machines have been problem free for many months (as well as my manual VBox ones for years) and the only way I'd even consider using it daily again by choice again is to try out their VMWare support ... which is unfortunately paid so I doubt that will happen. On the other hand, using vagrant did point out some severe weaknesses in VirtualBox itself, especially the file syncing support, and made me realize VMWare is worth the money for that alone. I still use vagrant once in awhile if I only need to test a project out for an hour or two.

As far as deployment, I could see the potential time savings when dealing with multiple VMs but those would only be realized if they're not offset by a longer time spent dealing with bugs. Still, I may give it another shot in that context when the need arises next.