Thinking more about this, perhaps it should be better to just remove then and note the commit. That would prevent users browsing the repo, cloning it (or Google indexing it), from trying to build/use providers that don't work.
On 5 October 2014 21:53, Andrew Phillips <aphill...@qrmedia.com> wrote: >> Just to complete Adrian's view, I'd add providers that only support >> obsolete versions and are unlikely to be updated. > > > In that case, I would definitely prefer to simply remove them and e.g. have > a Wiki page listing the providers that are no longer in the repo, together > with the commit which removed them. > > I guess that's not too different from an "attic repo" ;-) I just don't fancy > the idea of a jclouds-* repo with code that may not build and almost > certainly doesn't work. > > ap
