Re: Usability issues with status-history

On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 8:36 PM William Reade wrote: > On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 4:39 AM, Ian Booth > wrote: > >> >> I mostly agree but still believe there's a case for transient messages. >> The case >> where Juju is downloading an image and

Re: PatchValue (AddCleanup) unsafe with non pointer receiver test

On 17 March 2016 at 04:52, John Meinel wrote: > I came across this in the LXD test suite today, which was hard to track > down, so I figured I'd let everyone know about it. > > We have a nice helper in testing.IsolationSuite with "PatchValue()" that > will change a global

Usability issues with status-history

Machines, services and units all now support recording status history. Two issues have come up: 1. https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1530840 For units, especially in steady state, status history is spammed with update-status hook invocations which can obscure the hooks we really care

Preparing for the next beta - CI runs on feature branches

Hey Everyone! The cutoff for the next beta is just around the corner (Monday, March 21)! In order to meet this cutoff, please pay attention to the CI reports [0] on your branches and address failures on your branch when they arise. To avoid wasting CI test time on branches with known errors, we

Re: Usability issues with status-history

I think you are attributing too much importance to some data that can hardly be considered information let me try to mention some points that I think are valid here. 1) Not every message is valuable, you state that every message we throw away makes it harder to debug, but certainly a message like

Re: Usability issues with status-history

On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 4:39 AM, Ian Booth wrote: > > I mostly agree but still believe there's a case for transient messages. > The case > where Juju is downloading an image and emits progress updates which go into > status history is to me clearly a case where we

Re: Usability issues with status-history

I see this as a combination of two problems: 1) We're spamming the end user with "whatever's in the status-history collection" rather than presenting a digest tuned for their needs. 2) Important messages get thrown away way too early, because we don't know which messages are important. I think

Re: Openstack HA Portland Meetup Present

Thanks for the update James, glad things went so well! From our end, we appreciate the awesome first hand user feedback you're always willing to reach out and provide. Our stuff just gets better with folks like you putting it to the test day in and day out. I can't wait to get you some of the new

juju versions are now in github.com/juju/version

For a recent change in 2.0, we needed to be able to reference the version.Number struct from both juju-core and charm.v6. In order to support this, we moved most of the contents of github.com/juju/juju/version to at top level repo at github.com/juju/version. Note that certain juju-core-specific

Re: Planning for Juju 2.2 (16.10 timeframe)

On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Mark Shuttleworth wrote: > Hi folks > > We're starting to think about the next development cycle, and gathering > priorities and requests from users of Juju. I'm writing to outline some > current topics and also to invite requests or thoughts on

Re: Usability issues with status-history

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Ian Booth wrote: > > Machines, services and units all now support recording status history. Two > issues have come up: > > 1. https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1530840 > > For units, especially in steady state, status history is