Oops, I seem to be hitting reply rather than reply-all tonight! Here's a message I intended to send to everybody, and only sent to Gustavo.
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Gustavo Niemeyer <[email protected]>wrote: > These are *very* good points, Mark. Taking them to heart will > definitely lead into a good direction for the overall feature > development. > Thanks! > It sounds like we should avoid using a "management" command for > anything in juju, though. Most things in juju are about management one > way or the other, so "juju management" becomes very unclear and hard > to search for. > > Sure, that is probably the least palatable point, I'd origonally written it as: juju state --add But switched to management because for some reason at the time it seemed better -- but I think state-server is better than either, and more obvious. > Instead, the command might be named after what we've been calling them: > > juju add-state-server -n 2 > For implementation convenience sake, it would be okay to only ever > accept -n 2 when this is first released. I can also imagine the > behavior of this command resembling add-unit in a few aspects, since a > state server is in fact code that just needs a home to run in. This > may yield other common options across them, such as machine selection. I agree with this. Even to the point of erroring out if you don't add enough state servers to bring it up to an odd number. --Mark
-- Juju-dev mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
