cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Will Stevens <wstev...@cloudops.com>
Subject Re: Disable open inactive plugins: Contrail plugin
Date Fri, 28 Oct 2016 11:22:44 GMT
Sorry Rohit, I was not clear. Yes, I agree with your approach. I just
wanted to make sure we didn't make assumptions about usage simply by recent
builds failing.

I think commenting them out for at least one or two releases before
removing them is the right approach.

On Oct 28, 2016 1:45 AM, "Rohit Yadav" <rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com> wrote:

> Will, you make a fair point and we should not be removing plugins just
> because they fail to build but that's NOT what I've said.
>
>
> Let me break down my arguments:
>
>
> - The only obligation project has is towards any CloudStack users who may
> be using these plugins, but given the state of the plugin it's highly
> unlikely that they are in production use. The purpose of this thread is to
> investigate and ask if there are any such users, so far I'm not hearing
> anything from any of those users.
>
>
> - If the vendors who had initially contributed the plugins are not
> maintaining them or are not responsive, the project should not be obligated
> towards maintaining a broken component that does not even build, and
> project should in that case work towards a plan to deprecate such plugins
> over time.
>
>
> - The first thing I'm proposing here is to comment those plugins in
> 'plugins/pom.xml' to exclude them in the default build process. The next
> steps could be to discuss deprecating and removing them from the codebase
> over time, this is open for discussion and should be discussed separately.
>
>
> - The specific plugin (contrail) also fails to build against JDK8
> that adds a roadblock to our plan to migrate to JDK8 in future.
>
>
> - Background: I checked with few people including original
> authors/contributors, the story I'm told is that several of the network
> plugins were created as a proof-of-concept or go-to-market tools, and did
> not take off or got attention from their vendors as they failed to
> achieve specific business goals. Given CloudStack has been user-driven
> (than vendor-driven) it is fair to conclude that several of the plugins are
> not maintained most-likely because nobody is using them.
>
>
> Regards.
>
> rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* williamstevens@gmail.com <williamstevens@gmail.com> on behalf of
> Will Stevens <wstevens@cloudops.com>
> *Sent:* 27 October 2016 22:50:19
> *To:* dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> *Cc:* Rohit Yadav; users@cloudstack.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: Disable open inactive plugins: Contrail plugin
>
> Just because recent builds are failing does not really mean that no one is
> using it.  In my experience working with different companies who have ACS
> in production, a lot of them are using much older versions of ACS (4.4 for
> example).  Only a subset of companies keep their ACS install "close" to
> master and they are likely 2 or 3 versions behind master as well.
>
> I would suggest we wait a bit to see if anyone from the users@ list pops
> up.
>
> I think we can probably disable Midonet. I think Contrail is more likely
> to have active users on previous versions.
>
>
>
>> I would be in favor. I think that nobody uses them since all recent
>> builds are failing, right?
>>
>> Your proposal seems good to me.
>>
>> Wido
>>
>> >
>> > Regards.
>> >
>> > rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
>> > www.shapeblue.com
>> > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
>> > @shapeblue
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message