On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Curtis Hovey-Canonical < [email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Kapil Thangavelu > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > first as you say its people first experience with juju and the way its > > deployment usage fits very well with some folks production needs ( ie. i > > have a big machine in the corner and juju can deploy workloads on it). I > > think the issue primarily is that of implementation, and the mindset > among > > developers/implementers that we don't support it. > > > > Most of the reasons why its different on an implementation level > disappear > > with lxd, at which point we should support it for dev and prod. > > Do you mean local-provider would be less devel/demo if the > state-server was place in a container (machine-0) instead of co-opting > localhost to be machine-0? > > nutshell yes that's one major improvement. but there's a long list of improvements to the local provider to make it less flakey and given its often developers first introduction to juju i don't think we should be treating it as a second class citizen. it sounds like marco is going to try and paper over some of them with a plugin, but i think we should be looking at a fresh start based on lxd.
-- Juju-dev mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
