-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 396
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Avoid dropping existing features #64
Comments
As we want each feature to be capable of running individually but Installing I can see we are missing |
|
The main thing we want to be careful about is someone using the old shorthand syntax that then breaks if there's not a If we could work with the authors of those community-maintained features to establish a new home for them prior to cutting over to the new repos, then the migration code in the CLI could be updated to have a mapping table that redirects each one to the correct location:
Refactoring some features as options of other features is interesting. It would be helpful to see if we have any usage info to know how many users/repos would be impacted by any such feature deprecation/removal. If the usage is very low, it's probably OK to make that change since it sets up a cleaner pattern in the new repo which we can support long-term, and the overall devcontainer "features" concept is still a proposal that does not have guaranteed back-compat support since it's not finalized in the specification. |
This is a good idea, but doing that automatically might have some undesirable security implications. Current users of In general, I believe transfer of ownership is very problematic when it comes to trust. I'd like to suggest that we come up with a deprecation story. That would mean that |
Great point, I agree.
💯. I'd like us to come up with a way to gracefully deprecate these without having to move them to the new repo. A small tweak on my idea above which handles the transfer of ownership issue would be to keep them in the |
So we have a plan on dropping For
However, it does not look like we can completely drop them (without an alternative) as they seem to have moderate usage. We don't have 💯 data on features usage, but this kusto query shows remote-containers usage which doesn't seem too low. Also, from searching with Blackbird (which searches in public and very few private repos (eg. github)) there is some usage - 4 for Again, we don't have 💯 usage data so I think it's better to provide an alternative because unlike community features we don't have a strong deprecation story and there is some known usage. The alternative (as mentioned in previous comments) is to bundle them as an option with their parent languages. (ie bundling As per previous comments, we will have these individual features available in If I can get a 🟢 , then I'll start working on this --> bundling |
This sounds good to me 👍. |
All the work in this repo has been done. Additionally, we are not unpublishing any of the features in vscode-dev-containers, and can continue to take feedback as we move to this new repo. |
From a quick scan, looking at vscode-dev-containers, the following features look like they might be missing:
homebrew
fish
maven
gradle
jupyterlab
cc @jkeech @edgonmsft @chrmarti
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: