Sorry Rohit, I was not clear. Yes, I agree with your approach. I just wanted to make sure we didn't make assumptions about usage simply by recent builds failing.
I think commenting them out for at least one or two releases before removing them is the right approach. On Oct 28, 2016 1:45 AM, "Rohit Yadav" <rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com> wrote: > Will, you make a fair point and we should not be removing plugins just > because they fail to build but that's NOT what I've said. > > > Let me break down my arguments: > > > - The only obligation project has is towards any CloudStack users who may > be using these plugins, but given the state of the plugin it's highly > unlikely that they are in production use. The purpose of this thread is to > investigate and ask if there are any such users, so far I'm not hearing > anything from any of those users. > > > - If the vendors who had initially contributed the plugins are not > maintaining them or are not responsive, the project should not be obligated > towards maintaining a broken component that does not even build, and > project should in that case work towards a plan to deprecate such plugins > over time. > > > - The first thing I'm proposing here is to comment those plugins in > 'plugins/pom.xml' to exclude them in the default build process. The next > steps could be to discuss deprecating and removing them from the codebase > over time, this is open for discussion and should be discussed separately. > > > - The specific plugin (contrail) also fails to build against JDK8 > that adds a roadblock to our plan to migrate to JDK8 in future. > > > - Background: I checked with few people including original > authors/contributors, the story I'm told is that several of the network > plugins were created as a proof-of-concept or go-to-market tools, and did > not take off or got attention from their vendors as they failed to > achieve specific business goals. Given CloudStack has been user-driven > (than vendor-driven) it is fair to conclude that several of the plugins are > not maintained most-likely because nobody is using them. > > > Regards. > > rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com > www.shapeblue.com > @shapeblue > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* williamstev...@gmail.com <williamstev...@gmail.com> on behalf of > Will Stevens <wstev...@cloudops.com> > *Sent:* 27 October 2016 22:50:19 > *To:* dev@cloudstack.apache.org > *Cc:* Rohit Yadav; us...@cloudstack.apache.org > *Subject:* Re: Disable open inactive plugins: Contrail plugin > > Just because recent builds are failing does not really mean that no one is > using it. In my experience working with different companies who have ACS > in production, a lot of them are using much older versions of ACS (4.4 for > example). Only a subset of companies keep their ACS install "close" to > master and they are likely 2 or 3 versions behind master as well. > > I would suggest we wait a bit to see if anyone from the users@ list pops > up. > > I think we can probably disable Midonet. I think Contrail is more likely > to have active users on previous versions. > > > >> I would be in favor. I think that nobody uses them since all recent >> builds are failing, right? >> >> Your proposal seems good to me. >> >> Wido >> >> > >> > Regards. >> > >> > rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com >> > www.shapeblue.com >> > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK >> > @shapeblue >> > >> > >> > >> > >
