Move provider implementations under their related projects.

[Andrew Wilkins]

I agree with all the responses, I don't think it'd be helpful to move the
providers. It's our job to track the API changes. For most of the
upstreams, backwards incompatible changes are fairly infrequent.

If it's difficult to track API changes, perhaps it's the same for other
consumers of the APIs. It might be worth considering how the APIs can be
improved, and start a conversation with the upstream projects.

Cheers,
Andrew

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:27 AM Tim Penhey <tim.penhey at canonical.com> wrote:

> I'm a very strong -1 on this idea.
>
> Providers are Juju specific, and the other libraries should focus on
> exposing a useful Go API.
>
> Tim
>
> On 25/03/16 10:12, Eric Snow wrote:
> > Perhaps we should move the implementation of some providers over to
> > the repos for the projects with which the providers interact (and then
> > just import them in providers/all).  Then those providers would be
> > more likely to stay up-to-date in the face of changes in the project,
> > particularly backward-incompatible ones.  For example:
> >
> > * provider/maas -> github.com/juju/gomaasapi/maasprovider
> > * provider/lxd -> github.com/lxc/lxd/lxdprovider
> > * ...
> >
> > or something like that.  It's not a perfect solution nor a complete
> > one, but it should help.
> >
> > -eric
> >
>
>
> --
> Juju-dev mailing list
> Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju-dev/attachments/20160328/353d7f4a/attachment.html>