Do you understand what the deprecation of GPIO means? What you pointed to here will still work after deprecation without having the integration.
it means it will stop working after 2022.6 if you donāt do something.
Wow, you really donāt understand this deprecation.
1 Like
Anything hardware wise with the GPIO will continue to work. The ONLY thing being deprecated is the use INSIDE home assistant. I.e. You canāt use home assistant to control the GPIO.
He does not, already confirmed that.
My HAT doesnāt have an integrated fanā¦
Itās not the official HAT, but one I bought on Aliā¦
I think the official HAT is 802.3af (PoE) only. But if you look around you can find that are 802.3at (PoE+) HATs as well and I never had any problem with the one I boughtā¦
In never have any cooling problems, ass my RPi āboxā is open to sides for natural airflow. No fan is needed. Somehow all fans seem to make noise after a whileā¦
I had to respond to you. I hope you are not getting too frustrated with this current back and forth! You are always so helpful to the community and I hope you donāt lose your enthusiasm.
This argument that is on going is already fixed. People using gpio, canāt understand how to install HACS makes no sense?
I am not understanding what people are hoping to gain by continuing it? There are always changes that will be made that will effect someone. That is the complications of software. I have had several integrations over the last couple of years that were depreciated. I understand this happens. I wasnāt happy at the time, But I figured out what I needed to do and moved on.
1 Like
First, Iām OK with the solutions which have been presented, and I have been aware of this issue since it first hit this forum however many months ago. While I still donāt agree with the decision, the workaround we have today is trivial to implement, so challenging that decision is not productive for me.
But, your question is a good one, in relation to the thoughtful post by @Jared_Heath. What exactly could have been done better?
Hindsight is 20-20, and Iām not suggesting anyone did anything āwrong.ā Just that, with what we know now, things could have been done differently.
With that long preamble (Iām trying to avoid the pitchforks), Hereās one humble suggestion:
What if, after the decision was made to remove GPIO support from the core, a message went out, first in the Dev forum and then here and wherever else might be appropriate, that the Dev Team is looking for someone to take over an āorphanedā component so it wouldnāt be abandoned?
As it turned out, thatās exactly what happened, but only after a lot of unpleasantness. Iām simply suggesting there may have been a way to avoid a lot of that rancor.
4 Likes
Iām guessing you didnāt read thecodes response? A message went out and no one picked it up, so he did.
I guess I should have actually gone there last night, but I was laying in bed and didnāt consider it.
I think the earlier response by CaptTom might be an approach that would keep the pitchforks in the garages. After all, isnāt that what we all want? None of the users want to feel like they are being screwed. None of the devs wants to be yelled at. None of the moderators want to deal with the board tension.
I donāt think its an issue of removing GPIO. I think its an issue of removing it in the way it was removed. This is probably true of everything being removedā¦it comes at the very end of the release notes and at times comes across as an after-thought to the user community. I think this is where the communication can improve. If you just add a little finesse to the way these types of things are communicated, then the community has a chance to come together in a healthy non-adversarial (from everyoneās angle) way.
And it does seem it all came together in the end. The bumps in the road to the finish line are really where the focus should be. How do the user/mod/dev communities smooth out this bumps when big changes are in play?
I donāt have the answers. I do know that the community would improve if everyone involved in the process tried to smooth these bumps.
3 Likes
Hi, Iām also unhappy that GPIO support will end soon. I can understand the developer point of view, since maintenance seems to need a lot of time.
To my mind the Raspberry Pi platform offers a lot of functionality by the GPIO ports. So if the direct GPIO support will be dropped there is a need for an alternative. Maybe APIs like SPI, 1-wire & others can be replaced by server software that listenes on a specific network port. This abstraction layer might be easier to support.
E.g. for 1-wire the owserver/ofws package could solve the problem. But I did not find a documentation hoe to install owserver on the Pi (How to install owserver? 1-wire and Home Assistant OS).
I hope there will be a solution that allows to user the GPIO ports in future that is easier to maintain.
To be honest, no, I did not see a message indicating that a developer was needed to step forward and avoid having this integration abandoned. At least not before the decision was made to deprecate it and, ultimately, abandon it. If that took place then Iām afraid I missed it.
From what I saw, it was after the decision had already been made that the discussions about it began here. And it was after that when the official notice appeared in the Release Notes. That brought a lot more people into the discussion. Even then, that discussion went on for a while (with much negative energy being expended) before someone stepped in and took it on. (With my unqualified gratitude!)
Hereās the exact text from the Release Notes:
As of this release, all integrations interfacing with GPIO directly, have been deprecated.
There are multiple reasons for this, which includes a general low usage of these integrations. For most Home Assistant installations, GPIO isnāt easily usable and more often the integrations are unmaintained.
There was a note near the end which said:
We welcome custom integrations (existing or new ones) to provide alternatives.
This doesnāt come across as āwe want to keep supporting this but need someone to take it over.ā
My point was that this last step, announcing that someone was needed to take over support so it wouldnāt have to be abandoned, could have been the first step, before the decision was made, and before anyone (justifiably or not) got upset over it.
Iām only posting here to try to lower the temperature a bit and move the discussion toward ways to avoid this sort of thing in the future. Iām sure we can all agree that keeping this forum civil would be a good thing.
3 Likes
Looking at the device in question, gpio is not needed for it to operate. gpio can be used to flash some leds.
It was no mystery to any dev that it was being removed. You can see his response here:
While it wasnāt a formal āwe are looking for peopleā, people definitely knew it was being removed prior to the decision and no one else stepped up. Even after this kerfuffle, no one has stepped up to pick up the other GPIO integrations. This outrage timeline would be no different.
Just look at ZWave 1.4. Itās been stagnant for ~4 years and deprecated for over a year now. People still havenāt switched and they still believe that this was the developers decision, even though it was the communities decision to move to zwave js. There is no advantage to announcing early, people will still be upset.
2 Likes
Would it be possible for the devs to push an integration specific message (think update notification) to all HA instances using the particular integration? Obviously the message would only go to those that have analytics turned on and have reported using the integration in question.
My thought is that the push message in a case like this deprecation could link to the HA website with specific information about time-frame, steps needed to rectify and so on, or could even be sent out prior to the fact as a warning message.
If this is possible it could eliminate some of the āI had no ideaā comments and associated backlash.
1 Like
The people screaming about this probably have analytics off and/or would be outraged that HA is āspyingā on themā¦
1 Like
Well nice idea, but I imagine the tinfoil hat wearers would be resistant to that. I think probably justifiably. Isnāt analytics supposed to be anonymous?
@DavidFW1960 beat me to it.
1 Like
Yeah, I get that, but if you want the info, turn on analytics. The same people probably browse the web all day long without a VPN, soā¦
I believe so, but the devs wouldnāt need to know who is running the integration as such, just that 895 people are, so send them a message - in the same way they know which HA instances to send an update message too. Perhaps itās no doable due to the privacy aspect.
Iāve never had a problem participating in analytics. It indirectly helps make HA better I think and I donāt get the obsession over privacy for this.
3 Likes