https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-745
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Ignasi Barrera <ignasi.barr...@gmail.com> wrote: > +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 >>>
