On 02 Mar 14:06, Bjoern Rabenstein wrote: > On 26.02.20 18:32, Ben Kochie wrote: > > I would prefer to start with an offer to give someone else access to > > maintain > > the code, rather than shutdown an existing codebase. > > That would correspond to option (1) of what I suggested. However, > "rather than shutdown an existing codebase" suggests a false > dichotomy. My suggested option (2) would not involve shutting down the > existing codebase, at least not anytime soon. > > For reference, here are my two suggested options: > > 1. We find somebody that is qualified to maintain > prometheus/nagios_plugins in place. > > 2. We deprecate prometheus/nagios_plugins and refer to a 3rd party > integration (possibly based on forking prometheus/nagios_plugins) that > is properly maintained and developed. In this case, I'd keep the > existing repo around until further notice, but not accepting any > contributions besides important bug fixes. > > > If this fork is better, maybe we can get them to merge everything and they > > take > > over?
This fork has only started on January 13th, which is pretty new. > That might work. It would be good to get more opinions about this. I > sensed some reluctance in the past of having many "mere" maintainers > in the Prometheus GitHub org, without any intention to graduate to a > full prometheus-team member. > > In this particular case, there is the additional concern that the > nagios-plugins repository would naturally live outside of the > Prometheus GitHub org. As said, it's only in there for historical > reasons. > > Having said that, I'd be fine with keeping it there and recruit a > maintainer in place. But I'd like to have some confidence that we are > collectively OK with it. > > > Another option, we move it to prometheus-community. > > Yes, definitely. But again, it would be good to see more opinions > about this. (Personally, I'm not a great fan of > prometheus-community. I think the Prometheus GitHub org should contain > core components of the ecosystem, and the "community" consists of all > the hundreds of other repos that have to do with Prometheus. I don't > quite understand why we need a hybrid in between. But that's just my > personal opinion. I would not be opposed to having the "new" Nagios > plugin in prometheus-community, if that's what everybody else wants > and in particular if the future maintainer is also fine with it) I don't see how a plugin for another monitoring solution is a core component. This requires expertise of Icinga/Nagios, so that would even be better transfered to the Icinga community. I will try to get Icinga community's feedback on this as well. > > -- > Björn Rabenstein > [PGP-ID] 0x851C3DA17D748D03 > [email] [email protected] > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Prometheus 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/prometheus-developers/20200302130638.GF27526%40jahnn. -- (o- Julien Pivotto //\ Open-Source Consultant V_/_ Inuits - https://www.inuits.eu -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prometheus 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/prometheus-developers/20200302131217.GA31438%40oxygen.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
