You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@cloudstack.apache.org by Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com> on 2016/10/27 11:00:47 UTC
Disable open inactive plugins: Contrail plugin
All,
The Juniper contrail plugin is failing for last few hours, this plugin has not been maintained in last few years, except for codebase/architectural changes no changes were made to the plugin itself in last 2 years.
The Jenkins failure is due to the dependency not available, further the maven dependency that we are using is the snapshot one and not the release one, both of which is not actively maintained and has not seen any update/changes in past 2+ years.
[ERROR] Failed to execute goal org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-remote-resources-plugin:1.3:process (default) on project cloudstack: Failed to resolve dependencies for one or more projects in the reactor. Reason: Unable to get dependency information for org.powermock:powermock-module-junit4:jar:1.6.4: Failed to process POM for org.powermock:powermock-module-junit4:jar:1.6.4: Non-resolvable parent POM for org.powermock:powermock-module-junit4:[unknown-version]: Could not transfer artifact org.powermock:powermock-modules:pom:1.6.4 from/to juniper-contrail (http://juniper.github.io/contrail-maven/snapshots): Connect to juniper.github.io:80 [juniper.github.io/151.101.16.133] failed: Connection timed out
[ERROR] org.powermock:powermock-module-junit4:jar:1.6.4
I propose commenting the plugin out for all recent/active branches from the default build profile. Please shout out now if you're using this plugin?
Let's also discuss deprecating following network plugins with (a) commenting them out from default build profiles, (b) removing them from the codebase:
plugins/network/juniper-contrail/
plugins/network/midonet/
Please also advise any such inactive plugins that you may have identified and should be deprecated.
Comments, questions?
Regards.
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
Re: Disable open inactive plugins: Contrail plugin
Posted by Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>.
Venkata,
Fair enough, in that case let's work towards fixing the build issue.
Do we have anybody from Juniper or have contacts with people at Juniper who can help us with following:
- Publish and host the dependency artifacts at a reliable maven repository
- Refactor and switch the plugin from using snapshots repo to releases repository (see https://github.com/Juniper/contrail-maven)
- Build/publish a compatible library so the plugin can be built against JDK8
Regards.
________________________________
From: Venkata Yedugundla <ve...@accelerite.com>
Sent: 28 October 2016 11:13:49
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Rohit Yadav; users@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Disable open inactive plugins: Contrail plugin
I second this. I am aware of the customers who are actively using this. In fact, I have a PR to be merged in this area. Rather, we need to fix the build failures
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1715
Thanks,
Subhash
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
On Oct 27, 2016, at 10:50 PM, Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com>> wrote:
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<ma...@shapeblue.com>
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
DISCLAIMER ========== This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential information which is the property of Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, retain, copy, print, distribute or use this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this message. Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business does not accept any liability for virus infected mails.
Re: Disable open inactive plugins: Contrail plugin
Posted by Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>.
Venkata,
Fair enough, in that case let's work towards fixing the build issue.
Do we have anybody from Juniper or have contacts with people at Juniper who can help us with following:
- Publish and host the dependency artifacts at a reliable maven repository
- Refactor and switch the plugin from using snapshots repo to releases repository (see https://github.com/Juniper/contrail-maven)
- Build/publish a compatible library so the plugin can be built against JDK8
Regards.
________________________________
From: Venkata Yedugundla <ve...@accelerite.com>
Sent: 28 October 2016 11:13:49
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Rohit Yadav; users@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Disable open inactive plugins: Contrail plugin
I second this. I am aware of the customers who are actively using this. In fact, I have a PR to be merged in this area. Rather, we need to fix the build failures
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1715
Thanks,
Subhash
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
On Oct 27, 2016, at 10:50 PM, Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com>> wrote:
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<ma...@shapeblue.com>
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
DISCLAIMER ========== This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential information which is the property of Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, retain, copy, print, distribute or use this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this message. Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business does not accept any liability for virus infected mails.
Re: Disable open inactive plugins: Contrail plugin
Posted by Venkata Yedugundla <ve...@accelerite.com>.
I second this. I am aware of the customers who are actively using this. In fact, I have a PR to be merged in this area. Rather, we need to fix the build failures
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1715
Thanks,
Subhash
On Oct 27, 2016, at 10:50 PM, Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com>> wrote:
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<ma...@shapeblue.com>
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
DISCLAIMER
==========
This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential information which is the property of Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, retain, copy, print, distribute or use this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this message. Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business does not accept any liability for virus infected mails.
Re: Disable open inactive plugins: Contrail plugin
Posted by Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com>.
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" <ro...@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 <wi...@gmail.com> on behalf of
> Will Stevens <ws...@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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: Disable open inactive plugins: Contrail plugin
Posted by Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com>.
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" <ro...@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 <wi...@gmail.com> on behalf of
> Will Stevens <ws...@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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: Disable open inactive plugins: Contrail plugin
Posted by Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>.
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.
________________________________
From: williamstevens@gmail.com <wi...@gmail.com> on behalf of Will Stevens <ws...@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<ma...@shapeblue.com>
> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
Re: Disable open inactive plugins: Contrail plugin
Posted by Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>.
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.
________________________________
From: williamstevens@gmail.com <wi...@gmail.com> on behalf of Will Stevens <ws...@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<ma...@shapeblue.com>
> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
Re: Disable open inactive plugins: Contrail plugin
Posted by Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com>.
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
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Disable open inactive plugins: Contrail plugin
Posted by Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com>.
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
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Disable open inactive plugins: Contrail plugin
Posted by Simon Weller <sw...@ena.com>.
________________________________
From: Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl>
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 6:12 AM
To: Rohit Yadav; dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Disable open inactive plugins: Contrail plugin
> Op 27 oktober 2016 om 13:00 schreef Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>:
>
>
> All,
>
>
> The Juniper contrail plugin is failing for last few hours, this plugin has not been maintained in last few years, except for codebase/architectural changes no changes were made to the plugin itself in last 2 years.
>
>
> The Jenkins failure is due to the dependency not available, further the maven dependency that we are using is the snapshot one and not the release one, both of which is not actively maintained and has not seen any update/changes in past 2+ years.
>
> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-remote-resources-plugin:1.3:process (default) on project cloudstack: Failed to resolve dependencies for one or more projects in the reactor. Reason: Unable to get dependency information for org.powermock:powermock-module-junit4:jar:1.6.4: Failed to process POM for org.powermock:powermock-module-junit4:jar:1.6.4: Non-resolvable parent POM for org.powermock:powermock-module-junit4:[unknown-version]: Could not transfer artifact org.powermock:powermock-modules:pom:1.6.4 from/to juniper-contrail (http://juniper.github.io/contrail-maven/snapshots): Connect to juniper.github.io:80 [juniper.github.io/151.101.16.133] failed: Connection timed out
> [ERROR] org.powermock:powermock-module-junit4:jar:1.6.4
>
>
> I propose commenting the plugin out for all recent/active branches from the default build profile. Please shout out now if you're using this plugin?
>
>
> Let's also discuss deprecating following network plugins with (a) commenting them out from default build profiles, (b) removing them from the codebase:
>
>
> plugins/network/juniper-contrail/
>
> plugins/network/midonet/
>
>
> Please also advise any such inactive plugins that you may have identified and should be deprecated.
>
>
> Comments, questions?
>
>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
AFAIK, the contrail plugin only every supported Xenserver anyway. The midonet plugin hasn't been usable for a very long time. We actually reached out to them earlier this year and they had no interest in taking our money with ACS.
- Si
>
> Regards.
>
> rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
ShapeBlue - The CloudStack Company<http://www.shapeblue.com/>
www.shapeblue.com
Last year we had a project which required us to build out a KVM environment which used shared storage. Most often
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
Re: Disable open inactive plugins: Contrail plugin
Posted by Simon Weller <sw...@ena.com>.
________________________________
From: Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl>
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 6:12 AM
To: Rohit Yadav; dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Disable open inactive plugins: Contrail plugin
> Op 27 oktober 2016 om 13:00 schreef Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>:
>
>
> All,
>
>
> The Juniper contrail plugin is failing for last few hours, this plugin has not been maintained in last few years, except for codebase/architectural changes no changes were made to the plugin itself in last 2 years.
>
>
> The Jenkins failure is due to the dependency not available, further the maven dependency that we are using is the snapshot one and not the release one, both of which is not actively maintained and has not seen any update/changes in past 2+ years.
>
> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-remote-resources-plugin:1.3:process (default) on project cloudstack: Failed to resolve dependencies for one or more projects in the reactor. Reason: Unable to get dependency information for org.powermock:powermock-module-junit4:jar:1.6.4: Failed to process POM for org.powermock:powermock-module-junit4:jar:1.6.4: Non-resolvable parent POM for org.powermock:powermock-module-junit4:[unknown-version]: Could not transfer artifact org.powermock:powermock-modules:pom:1.6.4 from/to juniper-contrail (http://juniper.github.io/contrail-maven/snapshots): Connect to juniper.github.io:80 [juniper.github.io/151.101.16.133] failed: Connection timed out
> [ERROR] org.powermock:powermock-module-junit4:jar:1.6.4
>
>
> I propose commenting the plugin out for all recent/active branches from the default build profile. Please shout out now if you're using this plugin?
>
>
> Let's also discuss deprecating following network plugins with (a) commenting them out from default build profiles, (b) removing them from the codebase:
>
>
> plugins/network/juniper-contrail/
>
> plugins/network/midonet/
>
>
> Please also advise any such inactive plugins that you may have identified and should be deprecated.
>
>
> Comments, questions?
>
>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
AFAIK, the contrail plugin only every supported Xenserver anyway. The midonet plugin hasn't been usable for a very long time. We actually reached out to them earlier this year and they had no interest in taking our money with ACS.
- Si
>
> Regards.
>
> rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
ShapeBlue - The CloudStack Company<http://www.shapeblue.com/>
www.shapeblue.com
Last year we had a project which required us to build out a KVM environment which used shared storage. Most often
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
Re: Disable open inactive plugins: Contrail plugin
Posted by Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl>.
> Op 27 oktober 2016 om 13:00 schreef Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>:
>
>
> All,
>
>
> The Juniper contrail plugin is failing for last few hours, this plugin has not been maintained in last few years, except for codebase/architectural changes no changes were made to the plugin itself in last 2 years.
>
>
> The Jenkins failure is due to the dependency not available, further the maven dependency that we are using is the snapshot one and not the release one, both of which is not actively maintained and has not seen any update/changes in past 2+ years.
>
> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-remote-resources-plugin:1.3:process (default) on project cloudstack: Failed to resolve dependencies for one or more projects in the reactor. Reason: Unable to get dependency information for org.powermock:powermock-module-junit4:jar:1.6.4: Failed to process POM for org.powermock:powermock-module-junit4:jar:1.6.4: Non-resolvable parent POM for org.powermock:powermock-module-junit4:[unknown-version]: Could not transfer artifact org.powermock:powermock-modules:pom:1.6.4 from/to juniper-contrail (http://juniper.github.io/contrail-maven/snapshots): Connect to juniper.github.io:80 [juniper.github.io/151.101.16.133] failed: Connection timed out
> [ERROR] org.powermock:powermock-module-junit4:jar:1.6.4
>
>
> I propose commenting the plugin out for all recent/active branches from the default build profile. Please shout out now if you're using this plugin?
>
>
> Let's also discuss deprecating following network plugins with (a) commenting them out from default build profiles, (b) removing them from the codebase:
>
>
> plugins/network/juniper-contrail/
>
> plugins/network/midonet/
>
>
> Please also advise any such inactive plugins that you may have identified and should be deprecated.
>
>
> Comments, questions?
>
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
>
>
>
Re: Disable open inactive plugins: Contrail plugin
Posted by Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl>.
> Op 27 oktober 2016 om 13:00 schreef Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>:
>
>
> All,
>
>
> The Juniper contrail plugin is failing for last few hours, this plugin has not been maintained in last few years, except for codebase/architectural changes no changes were made to the plugin itself in last 2 years.
>
>
> The Jenkins failure is due to the dependency not available, further the maven dependency that we are using is the snapshot one and not the release one, both of which is not actively maintained and has not seen any update/changes in past 2+ years.
>
> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-remote-resources-plugin:1.3:process (default) on project cloudstack: Failed to resolve dependencies for one or more projects in the reactor. Reason: Unable to get dependency information for org.powermock:powermock-module-junit4:jar:1.6.4: Failed to process POM for org.powermock:powermock-module-junit4:jar:1.6.4: Non-resolvable parent POM for org.powermock:powermock-module-junit4:[unknown-version]: Could not transfer artifact org.powermock:powermock-modules:pom:1.6.4 from/to juniper-contrail (http://juniper.github.io/contrail-maven/snapshots): Connect to juniper.github.io:80 [juniper.github.io/151.101.16.133] failed: Connection timed out
> [ERROR] org.powermock:powermock-module-junit4:jar:1.6.4
>
>
> I propose commenting the plugin out for all recent/active branches from the default build profile. Please shout out now if you're using this plugin?
>
>
> Let's also discuss deprecating following network plugins with (a) commenting them out from default build profiles, (b) removing them from the codebase:
>
>
> plugins/network/juniper-contrail/
>
> plugins/network/midonet/
>
>
> Please also advise any such inactive plugins that you may have identified and should be deprecated.
>
>
> Comments, questions?
>
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
>
>
>