I agree, some plugins are going to die due to the lack of maintenance. No proposal to retain compatibility at "any cost" for sure. My point is that "few users, no maintainers" is not enough to End of Life the plugin. I think we need to work harder on promoting plugin adoptions (start sending brand-new "I adopted a plugins" T-shorts for that? Probably JEP).
BR, Oleg суббота, 13 января 2018 г., 18:33:59 UTC+1 пользователь Daniel Beck написал: > > > > On 13. Jan 2018, at 11:31, Oleg Nenashev <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > > > I don't think so. Jenkins ecosystem consists of many niche plugins, and > by EoLing them without obvious reason we would just destroy this ecosystem. > Moreover, we even have no such process defined, we can only blacklist > completely broken (e.g. target service is dead) or insecure plugins. > > This hits on a larger issue. I don't think it's a reasonable expectation > that every plugin written years (a decade?) ago, and not updated in several > years, continues to work as it always has, in a system that allows plugins > to couple as closely to core as Jenkins does. > > That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to retain compatibility if it's > reasonably straightforward to do (as here, apparently), but doing it at any > cost just results in the plugin ecosystem becoming a burden rather than an > advantage, and Jenkins becoming increasingly stale. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/5211d7a2-c8cd-4e0d-b8b6-04da17e5d219%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
