> Ok, I wasn’t sure if we should fix some of the arm-issues before. I can > create a branch and start working on some of them. I think a discussion > around retry and async will be useful down the road as well.
Sounds good. I'll try to promote the provider this week so you can take your branches out of the main repo. There is only 1 open PR for the ARM provider, though. If we can have it merged before the promotion, the better. https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/398 > > What is the best way to help the promotion in the near term? Any particular > testing to do? Not really. Promoting a provider is just moving it from one repo to another and changing the "groupId" to remove the "labs" suffix. That's it. The only inconvenient is if you have local branches starting from labs. In that case, you'll probably have to move them to the main repo. Once the provider is promoted you can follow this guide to move your branch. This is the same procedure we follow to promote providers. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/JCLOUDS/How+to+Promote+a+Provider Thanks for your support! I. > > Thanks > -jim > > > On September 12, 2017 at 2:00:45 AM, Ignasi Barrera (n...@apache.org) wrote: > > Thanks for the summary, Jim. > > I think the open issues for ARM are not blockers for promoting the > provider. Many of them are pretty straightforward to fix, and I will > be able to help with them next week. > > I also agree that we should release a new version soon, so people can > start using newer Guava versions. There is no problem if this means > releasing it before the ARM issue list is complete. We can release a > new bugfix version as soon as there is a patch set we want to release. > It is only about having someone volunteer to take the time to release > it, and I will, if needed :) > > Let's see how long it takes to fix the ARM issues, and work on the > release (+ bugfix release, if needed). > > > I. > > On 12 September 2017 at 05:51, Andrew Gaul <g...@apache.org> wrote: >> I cannot speak to the specific issues you cited, but we should minimize >> new development if we hope to release soon. From my perspective, we >> could fix any remaining Guava issues then cut 2.1.0, leaving other >> issues for 2.1.1. >> >> We should use JIRA to track any blocking issues via the following query >> which lists 2.1.0 targets: >> >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project+%3D+JCLOUDS+AND+resolution+%3D+Unresolved+AND+fixVersion+%3D+2.1.0+ORDER+BY+priority+DESC >> >> I removed the target from 30 issues with 13 remaining. Someone more >> knowledgeable about compute should do a second pass. >> >> We also have a large number of issues with assignees that are not likely >> active: >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/JCLOUDS/summary/statistics >> >> We should unassign these to avoid licking the cookie and discouraging >> other contributors. >> >> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 03:52:20PM -0700, Jim Spring wrote: >>> Andrea, Ignasi - >>> >>> Looking at the list, here are my thoughts for this release: >>> >>> >>> To include (if possible): >>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1331 >>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1304 / >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1282 >>> - see comment in Jira, seem to be the same and it seems like Vikas has a >>> PR >>> adding support >>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1291 >>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1230 >>> - whatever incremental improvements there are / can be done >>> >>> >>> TBD (depending on scope): >>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1305 >>> - currently there is work going on here, but I don’t know the overall >>> time >>> frame. I plan on circling back to get feasibility on such >>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1301 >>> - I haven’t run into this myself, don’t know the scope. Crashes are bad, >>> see m’kay. >>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1330 >>> - It looks like there is some work here, but behavior should be >>> consistent >>> with other Providers. Deleting a VM on Azure won’t delete the network; >>> deleting the resource group will. >>> >>> >>> Not to include due to scope of change/generalization: >>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1294 >>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1296 >>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1298 >>> - Adding async support as well as generalized retry likely impact code >>> outside of azure-arm provider. Retry should identify areas where relevant >>> support is needed, then scoped. >>> >>> >>> To discuss, new feature(s) currently being worked on: >>> - VM Scale Set support is currently being worked on. I’ve asked Julio >>> Colon to open an issue on this. As noted in another thread, this is a >>> Provider-only API layer as the higher level generalization doesn’t exist. >>> Should this work be included as part of this promotion? If he can’t >>> finish >>> the PR this week, it might be a couple of weeks out. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Thanks >>> -jim spring >>> >>> >>> >>> On September 6, 2017 at 8:49:08 AM, Jim Spring (jmspr...@gmail.com) >>> wrote: >>> >>> Ignasi - >>> >>> A couple of the open issues listed are being worked on. I will know a bit >>> more tomorrow about the status/timing on those tomorrow after a couple of >>> meetings. I’ll also take a look at a couple of the issues where Duncan >>> has >>> a potential fix/etc. and comment. >>> >>> -jim >>> >>> On September 5, 2017 at 1:55:31 AM, Ignasi Barrera (n...@apache.org) >>> wrote: >>> >>> Regarding the promotion of the ARM provider (I'd pretty much like that >>> to happen too), should we fix first any of the open issues? >>> https://s.apache.org/76Fq >>> >>> On 5 September 2017 at 09:49, Jim Spring <jmspr...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > Andrea - >>> > >>> > Just to clarify re: azure-arm — promotion from jclouds-labs to jclouds >>> > as >>> a >>> > non-labs provider? That would be excellent and I’m willing to >>> > contribute >>> > the time to make sure that happens. As in another thread - there is >>> > some >>> > new work going on, but it’s new features. I corrected some issues I saw >>> > re: Oauth after some refactoring. >>> > >>> > Let me know how I can help. >>> > >>> > I’m for this “promotion” and new release. >>> > >>> > -jim >>> > >>> > >>> > On September 5, 2017 at 12:31:25 AM, Andrea Turli >>> > (andrea.tu...@gmail.com) >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > Hi! >>> > >>> > It's been about two months since jclouds 2.0.2 and I'd like to propose >>> (and >>> > volunteer) to release 2.1.0. >>> > >>> > In fact I don't think 2.0.3 is what we want now, but open to >>> > suggestions. >>> > >>> > There are many improvements to Azure ARM which I think it is now mature >>> > enough to be promoted and several bug fixes and improvements to other >>> > providers that will be for sure useful for users. >>> > >>> > What do you guys think? >>> > >>> > Best, >>> > Andrea >> >> -- >> Andrew Gaul >> http://gaul.org/