On 09/11/17 13:06, Mark Shuttleworth wrote: > On 11/07/2017 03:11 PM, John Meinel wrote: >> ... >> >> >> > Perhaps just: >> > >> > juju deploy --map-machines A=B,C=D >> > >> > ... or some variant of that? >> > >> > Let's use the betas to refine and condense and clarify. >> >> +1 to that. I'm wondering if use-existing-machines is ever appropriate >> on its own, as the machine numbers in a model are ephemeral but >> machine numbers in a bundle are static. >> >> >> Feedback from Admins that one of their big use case really is for >> bundle-a to lay down a definition/base charm across everything, and >> bundle-b to be meant as an exact overlay, and all of the machine-ids >> are exact matches. And having to specify 0=0,...50=50 is a lot of ugly >> boilerplate. > > I would expect that --map-machines means that machine numbers correspond > UNLESS remapped. So your ugly boilerplate is not needed.
Been thinking more... how about this as a proposal: I think we can combine both the --use-existing-machines and the --bundle-machine into the single --map-machines: So... To use the existing machines as is: --map-machines existing To only map two machines, --map-machines 1=2,2=3 To use existing, and map two machines --map-machines existing,1=2,2=3 Thoughts? Tim -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
