I'd love to help, but to be honest I won't have time. I plan to spend the following weeks cleaning up the tech debt in Chef (migrating to MWS all its tests and studying moving the model to autovalue) and dropping all the unnecessary apis from Abiquo and rewriting it completely. For this purpose, though, I'll follow the patterns in GCE and look closely to the development of this new ec2 provider. El 14/11/2014 16:50, "Adrian Cole" <adrian.f.c...@gmail.com> escribió:
> > Having a modern, up-to-date AWS EC2 provider would be great, of course. > > Would the plan here be to remove aws-ec2 once this is done and/or to be > > backwards-compatible with it? > Absolutely no goal of being compatible with the 2009-era design of the > existing ec2 provider. > > > Do you think one of the "in progress" providers (GCE etc.) is > sufficiently > > finished to work as a good example of what we want a provider to look > like? > > As has been discussed a few times already, I think new contributors > > especially would really benefit from having an example that we consider > > worth copying, and if possible I think we should focus on getting that > done > > before starting on another provider. > Contributors are already looking at GCE and working with the new design. > > side-note: An area we can all improve on is not waiting to be > spoon-fed some document. This is open source, not a corporate job. We > should follow the example of GCE contributors who are happy to learn > as they go, and actually pay attention to notes called out to them on > github and jira. > > > Happy to try to help with that (unfortunately, I don't have much time > right > > now) if hands are needed! > cool. I will start this in a while. In the mean time, we need to do a > better job with ec2. I'm embarrassed that we add spend time reviewing > obscure apis, but leave ec2 to rot. Things like below should never be > reported by developers. At least some of us should feel the fire that > people depend on ec2 being able to operate, if not be current as a > *higher* priority than adding obscure apis. > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-774 >
