FWIW, this is the complete discussion: https://lists.apache.org/thread/w61gzk2ohjtshbwcb5gy6wb2htv7fo0x
It was actually cross-posted to the Brooklyn dev list [1] and some of the PMC members there expressed their opinion. We are, however, somehow blocked by inaction and I honestly don't know what would be the best way to move forward: On one hand, we'd love to have jclouds around and avoid moving it to the attic. On the other hand, though, we feel we must be responsible to the community and properly set expectations and reflect the project reality, retiring it if there is no real energy/time to continue it. This thread is several months old now, and nothing has changed. We did several calls to action with concrete requests for help, but no further engagement happened. I know we all have the best intentions here when willing to keep jclouds alive, but after several failed requests for help to those that want to keep the project alive, and several months of waiting and going in circles... Are we doing the right thing for the community by changing the current jclouds project PMC with another inactive PMC? (And if anyone thinks the new PMC wouldn't be inactive... why has no one taken any action in all these months?). My 0.02$ I. [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/6o20d0w1f1xroyo4vv33hlvyb1lk4ndd On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 2:54 PM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Il giorno lun 13 feb 2023 alle ore 14:33 Rich Bowen > <rbo...@apache.org> ha scritto: > > > > Please talk with the Brooklyn folks before taking this step. In their > > February board report they indicate that jclouds is one of their main > > dependencies, and if you move to the attic, they would be compelled to > > either find an alternative or reboot (or fork) the project. This indicates, > > at least to me, that there are people in that project have both the > > expertise and incentive to keep this project alive. As such, it would be > > wise to reach out to them, and see whether any of them can augment the > > project to keep it alive, or possibly some other solution. But please don't > > take this step without at least speaking to them. Thanks. > > I would also add that Apache Pulsar is using JClouds and we (Pulsar > PMC) would be needed to fork or to move to the Brooklyn fork in case > that the projects moves there > > Enrico > > > > > > > On 2023/01/29 08:07:48 Andrew Gaul wrote: > > > Retiring the project to the attic is not my preferred outcome but I > > > think accurately captures the current state of affairs. Let's run a > > > final release then we can proceed with a formal discussion and vote. > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 08:44:27AM +0100, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > > > > Hi Geoff, > > > > > > > > To Geoff and others, happy new year :) > > > > > > > > Yes, I agree: it seems the bandwidth is limited. > > > > > > > > So, I think it makes sense to move jclouds into attic; and let other > > > > projects find an alternative (forking part of jclouds, finding a brand > > > > new alternative, ...). > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > JB > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 6:28 PM Geoff Macartney <geom...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi JB > > > > > > > > > > It appears that we don't have the collective bandwidth to add new > > > > > active > > > > > contributors to the project, so, sadly, moving jclouds to the attic > > > > > does > > > > > seem to be the right thing to do. It will be up to each downstream > > > > > project > > > > > to figure out what it wants to do in consequence. > > > > > > > > > > Belated Happy New Year to all. > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > Geoff > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 29 Dec 2022 at 05:38, Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > > > > <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry to have been quiet, I'm "half off" for festive time ;) > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm still interested in helping maintain jclouds from a community > > > > > > standpoint. However, clearly, the current committers/PMC members > > > > > > don't > > > > > > want to be involved anymore. > > > > > > > > > > > > As most of the volunteers are not jclouds PMC members (I think I'm > > > > > > the > > > > > > only one), you have to accept the decision from PMC members. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, I see only three options for the projects using jclouds: > > > > > > 1. current PMC members accept to extend/expand the committer list > > > > > > (and > > > > > > PMC) to have new people volunteer to maintain jclouds, so projects > > > > > > can > > > > > > still use jclouds. I don't want to be pushy in this direction. It's > > > > > > important to have the long time PMC members, if they want to move > > > > > > jclouds in the attic, it's fair and we have to accept that. > > > > > > 2. replace jclouds with something else. That's probably the > > > > > > preferred > > > > > > approach, replacing jclouds directly with cloud providers APIs. > > > > > > 3. fork jclouds (or part of jclouds) in other projects (the part > > > > > > actually used in the project). For instance, we can imagine having > > > > > > code from jclouds moved/forked in brooklyn. > > > > > > > > > > > > My prefered option is probably 2, according to the discussion in > > > > > > this > > > > > > thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > Happy new year to all, > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > JB > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 9:11 PM Geoff Macartney <geom...@apache.org> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope you had a restful Christmas break. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrew, thanks very much for these details, that is helpful to > > > > > > > scope the > > > > > > > effort required to maintain jclouds. Of course what takes 10 > > > > > > > hours for > > > > > > > Andrew, with his familiarity with jclouds, will take perhaps > > > > > > significantly > > > > > > > longer for those of us who are not yet familiar, even after an > > > > > > > initial > > > > > > > period of learning. You'll each have your own estimations I'm > > > > > > > sure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So - two questions to everyone who has expressed an interest in > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > discussion (have I missed anyone?): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Andrey, Enrico, Francois, JB, Juan, Iuliana, and anyone > > > > > > > else for > > > > > > that > > > > > > > matter who hasn't yet spoken up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Who among us feels strongly enough about their need for > > > > > > > jclouds to > > > > > > > continue business as usual that they want to volunteer to commit > > > > > > > to the > > > > > > > time it will take to learn it and then maintain it going forward > > > > > > (becoming > > > > > > > a committer)? This would not only include releases, as Andrew > > > > > > > outlined, > > > > > > but > > > > > > > also security fixes, and maintenance as dependencies age (e.g. > > > > > > > that gson > > > > > > > problem). It seems to me we need *at least* two volunteers for > > > > > > > jclouds to > > > > > > > continue; three would be better. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Or do you agree with Andrew that avoiding the attic doesn't > > > > > > > need to be > > > > > > > the goal? That everything has a natural lifetime and maybe the > > > > > > > attic is > > > > > > now > > > > > > > the right course for jclouds? Perhaps you feel your effort would > > > > > > > be > > > > > > better > > > > > > > directed toward adapting your own code to a world without > > > > > > > jclouds. E.g. > > > > > > > from a Brooklyn point of view maybe the time is near for replacing > > > > > > > JCloudLocation with provider specific locations, or a new > > > > > > > abstraction. > > > > > > Who > > > > > > > knows, that might even remove a slew of dependencies and assist > > > > > > > us moving > > > > > > > on from Java 8. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Concretely: if you want to volunteer to commit to maintaining > > > > > > > jclouds, > > > > > > can > > > > > > > I ask you please to reply to this email to say so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards to all, and wishing you a Happy New Year. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Geoff > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 25 Dec 2022 at 01:12, Andrew Gaul <g...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 03:25:04PM +0000, Geoff Macartney wrote: > > > > > > > > > Can we try to get some data on what amount of effort is > > > > > > > > > required > > > > > > here? > > > > > > > > > Andrew, Ignasi, here are some questions for you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we want to at least keep Jclouds going, without > > > > > > > > > necessarily doing > > > > > > much > > > > > > > > > fresh feature development on it: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. What do you think is a desirable *minimum* number of active > > > > > > > > contributors > > > > > > > > > to the project (doing releases, dependency updates, security > > > > > > > > > fixes, > > > > > > > > > occasional important bug fixes)? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache projects need a quorum of 3 committers to make a release > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > jclouds will soon lack. Mechanically, a single motivated > > > > > > > > person could > > > > > > > > keep pushing releases with a few drive-by +1s. But > > > > > > > > practically, the > > > > > > > > jclouds blobstore and compute scope is large enough that two > > > > > > > > people > > > > > > > > should maintain the project with some domain expertise. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. How much work is that likely to involve? (Approx time > > > > > > > > > commitment). > > > > > > > > Let's > > > > > > > > > separate out how much effort it is to build, test and publish > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > release > > > > > > > > > from other stuff which is going to be more ad-hoc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I estimate that I spend 10 hours per release: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * triaging blobstore issues (~1 hour) > > > > > > > > * reviewing/pushing forward outstanding PRs (~2 hours) > > > > > > > > * running integration tests (~1 hour) > > > > > > > > * dealing with jclouds tech debt and breakages (0-10 hours?) > > > > > > > > * Apache process and overhead (~1 hour) > > > > > > > > * fixes that help my project or look easy (? hours) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. How much access to cloud providers/infrastructure is > > > > > > > > > required to > > > > > > test > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > release? How expensive is it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have access to all the major blobstore providers and run > > > > > > > > integration > > > > > > > > tests for them. I estimate this costs me less than $1 but > > > > > > > > running > > > > > > > > compute tests may cost more. Note that there are flaky and > > > > > > > > broken > > > > > > tests > > > > > > > > which require some judgment call so I only look at the diff > > > > > > > > between > > > > > > > > releases. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. How much work would it be for new contributors to learn the > > > > > > codebase > > > > > > > > > well enough to contribute effectively? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jclouds is a big project that uses a custom annotation mechanism > > > > > > > > (RestAnnotationProcessor) and extensively (excessively?) uses > > > > > > > > Guice > > > > > > > > which makes it hard for many people (including me!) to > > > > > > > > understand. We > > > > > > > > could debate the merits of the technical approach but socially > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > makes it hard to attract contributors. I also think that the > > > > > > > > technical > > > > > > > > debt that jclouds has accrued generally makes it less pleasant > > > > > > > > to work > > > > > > > > on than simpler or newer projects. I don't think this answers > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > question but Ignasi and I now work outside the Java and cloud > > > > > > ecosystems > > > > > > > > and are not in a good position to explain/rediscover how this > > > > > > > > all > > > > > > works. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think if we know better how much it will take, we can each > > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > easily > > > > > > > > > ask ourselves, "could I do this"? If enough of us say "yes", > > > > > > > > > we may > > > > > > avoid > > > > > > > > > the attic yet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know that avoiding the attic should be the goal. If > > > > > > > > there are > > > > > > > > motivated people that want to continue jclouds then please do > > > > > > > > so. But > > > > > > > > currently no one is doing any work towards this end. jclouds > > > > > > > > continues > > > > > > > > to accrue technical debt (e.g., gson 2.9.0 incompatibility) and > > > > > > > > there > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > no one left to do this work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it would be good for a new contributor to step back and > > > > > > > > compare > > > > > > > > against similar multi-cloud projects like libcloud to evaluate > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > jclouds does well and what it does not. I suspect that > > > > > > > > reimplementing > > > > > > > > the REST APIs is not a good choice in 2022 and instead jclouds > > > > > > > > or a > > > > > > > > similar library should reuse the vendor SDKs and focus only on > > > > > > > > multi-cloud portability. And simplify the project so users can > > > > > > > > become > > > > > > > > contributors more easily. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Andrew Gaul > > > > > > > > http://gaul.org/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Andrew Gaul > > > http://gaul.org/ > > >
