On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Gustavo Niemeyer gust...@niemeyer.net
wrote:
I don't think I fully understand the proposal there. To have such a
something-changed hook, we ought to have a better mechanism to tell
*what* actually changed. In other words, we have a number of hooks
that imply a
For our work on Machine View in the Juju GUI the team needs to help the
user know what can and cannot be done with machines and containers. One of
those things is determining if lxc or kvm containers work on various
providers so the UX will not show users an option we know doesn't work.
Jay wrote
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014, Richard Harding wrote:
Right now I'm hesitant to enable creating containers in Machine View for
anything but MAAS.
Just to clarify, after having some more coffee we can warn users that
expose services that have units in containers in the GUI and it should help
raise
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Menno Smits menno.sm...@canonical.com wrote:
Be aware that I've seen JFDI used at least a couple of times over recent
weeks on PRs that *were* related to fixing a CI blocker but the person was
in too much of a hurry to add the appropriate __fixes-N__
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 9:07 AM, William Reade
william.re...@canonical.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Gustavo Niemeyer gust...@niemeyer.net
wrote:
I don't think I fully understand the proposal there. To have such a
something-changed hook, we ought to have a better mechanism to
Thanks for the correction. You're right, in the testing we were checking
expose directly. We also did a test (not in this script) around two
services where one was on the root and one was in a container, but even
that's not a fair case of 'routable' as that might work while two units on
different
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 14-08-19 10:36 AM, Gustavo Niemeyer wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Aaron Bentley
aaron.bent...@canonical.com wrote:
On 14-08-19 09:42 AM, Gustavo Niemeyer wrote:
I have never seen myself a single charm that completely
ignores all
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Aaron Bentley aaron.bent...@canonical.com
wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 14-08-19 09:42 AM, Gustavo Niemeyer wrote:
I have never seen myself a single charm that completely ignores
all the action cues to simply re-read the whole
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Aaron Bentley aaron.bent...@canonical.com
wrote:
True, I didn't call out the exceptions for the charmworld charm. For
completeness, the exceptions in charmworld are:
install
nrpe-external-master-relation-changed
restart
(this isn't actually a hook?)
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:41 PM, William Reade
william.re...@canonical.com wrote:
(out of interest, if started/stopped state were communicated to you any
other way, would you still need these?)
If you communicate events in a different way, you obviously won't need
your previous way of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 14-08-19 11:41 AM, William Reade wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Aaron Bentley
aaron.bent...@canonical.com mailto:aaron.bent...@canonical.com
wrote:
reverseproxy-relation-joined start stop
(out of interest, if started/stopped
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 14-08-19 11:41 AM, Gustavo Niemeyer wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Aaron Bentley
aaron.bent...@canonical.com wrote:
At the same time, the strictness of redoing everything all the time
is not necessary, and a good example is still
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Aaron Bentley
aaron.bent...@canonical.com wrote:
True. At that point, the pattern is not a win, but it's not much of a
loss. Changing the web site relation is extremely uncommon, but
operations which do require server restarts are quite common. So
making an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 14-08-19 12:46 PM, Gustavo Niemeyer wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Aaron Bentley
aaron.bent...@canonical.com wrote:
True. At that point, the pattern is not a win, but it's not much
of a loss. Changing the web site relation is
Something to be mindful of is that we will shortly be implementing a new
hook for metering (likely called collect-metrics). This hook differs
slightly to the others in that it will be called periodically (e.g. once
every hour) with the intention of sending metrics for that unit to the
state
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Matthew Williams
matthew.willi...@canonical.com wrote:
Something to be mindful of is that we will shortly be implementing a new
hook for metering (likely called collect-metrics). This hook differs
slightly to the others in that it will be called periodically
hmm.. there's three distinct threads here.
default-hook - charms that do so symlink 0-100% - to one hook.. in
practice everything, sometimes minus install (as the hook infrastructure
needs pkgs).. and most typically implemented via dispatch table.
something-changed - completely orthogonal to
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 3:07 AM, Aaron Bentley
aaron.bent...@canonical.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 14-08-19 12:46 PM, Gustavo Niemeyer wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Aaron Bentley
aaron.bent...@canonical.com wrote:
True. At that point, the pattern
18 matches
Mail list logo
