+1
On 5 October 2014 17:10, Adrian Cole <adrian.f.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >>
