Shane, Once we've unasynced things, I think we'll be at a point where we can realistically have a provider guide that won't be out of date by the time it's reviewed. So, let's keep this thought inline for 1.7, possibly open a jira so not forgotten.
-A On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Shane Witbeck <[email protected]>wrote: > +1 to remove cruft. > > Apologies if this is addressed already but it seems the "how do I add a > new provider" question is asked often enough that we should have a document > to point to even if it's a one liner that says something like copy > "provider-x". > > Thoughts? > > -- > Shane Witbeck > > > On Thursday, May 16, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Adrian Cole wrote: > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-54 I'll open a pull on > this. > > > > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Ignasi <[email protected](mailto: > [email protected])> wrote: > > > > > Whenever someone wants to add a new provider, we always suggest to > > > copy the latest provider, so the archetype is no used in practice nor > > > updated. > > > > > > +1 to remove those. > > > > > > On 16 May 2013 20:54, Adrian Cole <[email protected] (mailto: > [email protected])> wrote: > > > > Hi, team. > > > > > > > > Many of you know that our archetypes folder hasn't worked in a long > time, > > > > and our assemblies project has not been used in at least a year. I'd > > > > > > > > > > like > > > > to remove these vs maintain headers etc in them. If we wanted an > > > > archetype, we'd need to largely recreate it anyway. > > > > > > > > Any against? > > > > > > > > -A > >
