Skip to content
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

[PROPOSAL] Remove udig engine support #1368

Closed
Andreagit97 opened this issue Sep 26, 2023 · 7 comments · Fixed by #1485
Closed

[PROPOSAL] Remove udig engine support #1368

Andreagit97 opened this issue Sep 26, 2023 · 7 comments · Fixed by #1485
Assignees
Labels
kind/feature New feature or request
Milestone

Comments

@Andreagit97
Copy link
Member

Motivation

In the last maintainer call, we discussed whether it is the case to remove the udig engine from libscap. The main reason behind this proposal is that today the udig engine is not maintained and broken and unfortunately we have no manpower to maintain it...Removing it will clean and reduce the size of our codebase so I'm in favor of this change.

Feature

Remove the udig engine from libscap

WDYT? @falcosecurity/libs-maintainers

You can vote as always with a +1 or -1

This issue is not just for maintainers but also for all adopters to jump in with concerns or blockers, even if as I said udig is broken so I don't think we have adopters for it

@Andreagit97 Andreagit97 added the kind/feature New feature or request label Sep 26, 2023
@Andreagit97 Andreagit97 added this to the 0.14.0 milestone Sep 26, 2023
@FedeDP
Copy link
Contributor

FedeDP commented Sep 26, 2023

+1 from me! Removing dead code is always good to lower maintenance cost.

@gnosek
Copy link
Contributor

gnosek commented Sep 26, 2023

+1. We can always bring it back (as a first class citizen, unlike now) if there's community interest

@incertum
Copy link
Contributor

+1 and thanks for driving this!

@leogr
Copy link
Member

leogr commented Sep 26, 2023

+1

@hbrueckner
Copy link
Contributor

+1 reducing technical debt is always great! Thanks for driving this!

@incertum
Copy link
Contributor

@Andreagit97 keep for 0.14.0? Don't see a PR up yet or push to 0.15.0?

@Andreagit97
Copy link
Member Author

it's better to have it to avoid conflicts with the release branch in the future :/ this is the PR #1485 a big no-op

@Andreagit97 Andreagit97 self-assigned this Nov 15, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
kind/feature New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

6 participants