Remove bugsnag

[davidspek]

As discussed in #3991 this PR removes bugsnag from our code base so we can clean it up for v3.

[Jamstah]

Is this in the v2 stream? If so we shouldn't remove it without a replacement.

Even if its not in the v2 stream, if there are users on HEAD we shouldn't remove it without a replacement.

[davidspek]

HEAD is considered edge so it can break or be broken, and people need to be aware of that. With the work for v3 being nearly complete this is our chance to be able to get rid of this code in the new major release. Getting an alternative over the line for v3 will take too long.

[Jamstah]

I don't think we need an alternative to get v3 over the line.

I get that HEAD is edge, but for me that line has blurred in this case because of the time since the v2 stream was marked as urgent fixes only.

[Jamstah]

@ob1dev @tescherm I see your names associated with bugsnag in this repo, so FYI in case you have any opinions.

[davidspek]

The line has definitely blurred, but if we merge these removals just before cutting v3 I think that's the only thing that we can do. If I expected v3 to take many more months I'd say this removal is premature for people building off of HEAD.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 100.00% and project coverage change: +0.09% 🎉

Comparison is base (597e8a6) 57.67% compared to head (3e4c4ea) 57.76%.

❗ Your organization is not using the GitHub App Integration. As a result you may experience degraded service beginning May 15th. Please install the Github App Integration for your organization. Read more.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #4000      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   57.67%   57.76%   +0.09%     
==========================================
  Files         108      108              
  Lines       10525    10493      -32     
==========================================
- Hits         6070     6061       -9     
+ Misses       3781     3760      -21     
+ Partials      674      672       -2     

Files Changed	Coverage Δ
configuration/configuration.go	65.10% <ø> (ø)
registry/registry.go	48.35% <100.00%> (+1.13%)	⬆️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[wy65701436]

I'm not against removing the bugsnag.

And it is important for us to establish a clear deprecation policy and inform the community using the communication methods outlined in the policy.

[wy65701436]

lgtm

[milosgajdos]

@distribution/maintainers are we all onboard with removing bugsnag? @davidspek have you messaged the CNCF slack about this?

[Jamstah]

As per #4001, it would be good to have something decisive that says that this isn't being used, but I feel like we won't get that here.

With Harbor not needing it and other involved parties not saying anything, perhaps the right approach is to drop the support in main, but not close the door to putting it back if we get more feedback from adopters. At least if we do it now then the RC process should catch those users and trigger that feedback.

So, LGTM.

[davidspek]

@Jamstah Yeah I think that's realistically the only way forward in the current situation.