Remove ACR builder

[balopat]

Should only be merged after: #1305.

Fixes #1283.

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #1308 into master will increase coverage by 0.12%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1308      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   44.85%   44.98%   +0.12%     
==========================================
  Files         106      106              
  Lines        4735     4737       +2     
==========================================
+ Hits         2124     2131       +7     
+ Misses       2389     2385       -4     
+ Partials      222      221       -1

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
pkg/skaffold/runner/runner.go	50.2% <ø> (+0.61%)	⬆️
pkg/skaffold/schema/v1alpha5/upgrade.go	64.7% <100%> (+6.08%)	⬆️
pkg/skaffold/schema/v1alpha5/defaults.go	49.01% <0%> (+1.96%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 09e67c1...bff7897. Read the comment docs.

[ehotinger]

@balopat @dgageot could one of you cc me when the plugin model is complete so we can add this back in? Or if you need ideas wrt the plugin model?

[SteveLasker]

I was happy to see ACR Tasks supported, but surprised to see if removed. Shouldn't the extension model have been figured out before removing a capability? We're happy to help support this so this is truly a cross cloud solution.

[nkubala]

Shouldn't the extension model have been figured out before removing a capability?

@SteveLasker possibly, but our thinking was that we wanted to avoid setting the precedent and leading contributors to send us more new builders, which we'd have to reject even though this one was already accepted.

the builder plugin model has been implemented in skaffold for a few releases now, so we're happy to accept contributions for new builders as plugins! we'll have some guidelines for contributing coming pretty soon, but feel free to start poking around in the code before that :)

EDIT: I got a little ahead of myself here, so I wanted to clarify. what I should have said is that the plugin model has been initially implemented, but it's still somewhat experimental and we're still iterating on the design, so in its current state it's not exactly the friendliest model to work with for contributors. we're working on both fully converting our existing builders to plugins themselves and improving the design, as well as making it as easy to integrate with as possible, so definitely stay tuned to future releases for updates on it! sorry for any confusion I might have caused :)

[balopat]

@SteveLasker - thank you for your comment!

In terms of the ACR tasks - we did not have the capacity, or the infrastructure to support it with a clear conscience ourselves - thank you for offering to support it - this sounds like an interesting collaboration. I wonder what you had in mind for that?

At this point, I see the plugin model to be of a more future proof and cleaner direction than reverting this change back into the codebase.

We are very actively working on the plugin model and it is impacting the builder structure heavily - I would say that it is not in a shape yet to contribute to - I would estimate another couple of weeks before it gets into a good state.

[SteveLasker]

Fair enough. As the plug-in model evolves, we're happy to support the scenario.