Cool. In the meantime, things that have been unhooked and not released since 1.5 should all be removed (there are still a few like this in jclouds-labs). Sound good?
-A On Oct 5, 2014 7:58 AM, "Ignasi Barrera" <n...@apache.org> wrote: > +1 to the creation of an Attic. > > We have many providers that haven't had any contribution for a long > time and many we can't test because we don't have credentials. That > makes maintaining them extremely difficult and releasing them provides > very little value, specially those we already know that are broken. > > I think the plan to detach those providers from the release process as > a first step and then creating an attic is a good way to proceed. It > would be good to come up with the list of the "dead" providers (or > attic candidates) here in the dev@ list first, so everyone is aware of > what's going to be moved and can discuss > > I.. > > On 2 October 2014 20:25, Adrian Cole <adrian.f.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, team. > > > > I have noticed that there's a lot of maintenance still going on for > > providers that are not only in labs, but haven't had any feature work > > in over a year. Some of these are in fact dead and could be removed. > > Others are far behind in versions. In any case, providers with no > > owner or live tests run are simply tech debt. > > > > Here's a suggestion for a start. > > > > unhook aging code such as the jenkins, virtualbox, savvis, etc > > providers from master. > > keep them in 1.8.x branch, and keep that compiling, but don't release > > them in 2.x > > > > Later, we can suggest a process for a real attic -> /dev/null for > > things that are "not quite dead, yet" > > > > The thing is, that if there's a provider that hasn't been touched in > > over a year, it needs a significant helping of work to refactor into > > current approach, and nothing in labs should exit as an antique > > anyway. Meanwhile this frees us up to modernize core, such as removing > > async, etc. > > > > At the end of the day, we need to be able to both start and complete > > hard things. Labs providers, especially orphaned ones, shouldn't get > > in the way of the latter. > > > > Thoughts? > > -A >
