On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:41 AM, William Reade <william.re...@canonical.com > wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Rick Harding <rick.hard...@canonical.com> > wrote: > >> +1 retries are great, with backoff, when you know you're doing it because >> you have experience that certain api requests to clouds, or to other known >> failure points. >> > > If you're thinking about it in terms of "known failure points" you already > understand that you need a wide net to catch all the retryable errors that > could come out of a given operation. What makes hook execution different > from any other code that we want to be reliable? > > Blindly just saying "if at first you don't succeed, go go go" isn't a >> better UX. It adds another layer of complexity in debugging, and doesn't >> really improve the product. Only the charm author knows enough about what >> it's trying to achieve to do intelligent retry. >> > > Empirically, it seems that the retries caused jamespage's charm succeed > where it would have failed; and we have happy results from Gabriel's > windows charms as well. That STM to be evidence that the product is > improved... > You realize James was complaining and not celebrating the "success" ? The fact that we can have a discussion trying to determine whether something is a bug or a feature indicates a problem. -D
-- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
