As a non English native myself I find destroy to be much more final than kill, to me destroy sounds like kill and then burn just in case, but I don't know if this extends to other non English speakers too.
On Wednesday, 6 April 2016, Nate Finch <[email protected]> wrote: > Also +1 to Andrew's proposal. In particular, the difference between kill > and destroy is pretty arbitrary from a vocabulary standpoint, so it's not > clear which one is the default and which one is the extreme measure. A > flag on destroy is a lot more clear in that regard (and reduces the number > of commands needed). > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 8:41 AM Horacio Duran <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > >> Strong +1 to what Andrew just proposed >> >> On Wednesday, 6 April 2016, Andrew Wilkins <[email protected] >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 7:35 PM Rick Harding <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 to the -1 of a new command for this. I'd like to raise the >>>> discussion with the technical board as I'd like understand why the change >>>> the change that the team had to make made it impossible for kill-controller >>>> to function and what we could do to allow the team to remove legacy code, >>>> but still be able to kill off things. >>>> >>> >>> Sorry, I probably should have started a new thread; this is orthogonal. >>> Still worth talking about with the board, but orthogonal to removing >>> details of a controller. You might "juju register" someone else's >>> controller, and then want to remove it from your client without destroying >>> it. >>> >>> I think the UX could do with rethinking. There's a few issues: >>> (1) It's too easy to lose resources via kill-controller. See: >>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1559701 and >>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1566011 >>> (2) It's not clear from the name what kill-controller vs. >>> destroy-controller is, and so it's easy to assume they either do the same >>> thing, or just randomly choose one and run it. That leads to (1) happening >>> more than we'd like or expect. >>> (3) destroy-controller is harder to use than kill-controller for the >>> standard case of destroying the controller and all of its hosted models. >>> You have to pass "--destroy-all-models" to destroy-controller, which you >>> don't have to pass to kill-controller. I don't understand the point of >>> that, given that you're already asked whether you want to destroy the >>> controller or not. >>> >>> What I would like to see is: >>> * kill-controller to be dropped >>> * destroy-controller's --destroy-all-models flag to be dropped, and >>> implied by the accepted prompt (or -y) >>> * destroy-controller to take on a --force flag, causing it to do what >>> kill-controller does now, and what destroy-environment --force used to do >>> * a new command to remove a controller from the client >>> >>> Why a new command? Because removing/forgetting is orthogonal to >>> destroying. It's plain weird to say "kill-controller --forget" (or >>> --cleanup, or whatever) if you're removing details of a live controller >>> that you just don't want to use any more. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Andrew >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 11:55 PM Andrew Wilkins < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 2:29 AM Cheryl Jennings < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Relevant bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1553059 >>>>>> >>>>>> We should provide a way to clean up controllers without making the >>>>>> user manually edit juju's files. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Unless anyone objects, or has a better spelling, I will be adding a >>>>> command to do this: >>>>> >>>>> juju purge-controller <controller-name> >>>>> >>>>> The command will require a "-y" or prompt for confirmation, like >>>>> kill-controller. It will not attempt to destroy the controller, it will >>>>> just remove the details of it from the client. >>>>> >>>>> (Alternative suggestion for spelling: "juju forget-controller". >>>>> Purge-controller may suggest that we're purging a controller of its >>>>> contents, rather than purging the controller from the client?) >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Andrew >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 7:05 AM, Nate Finch <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> This just happened to me, too. Kill-controller needs to work if at >>>>>>> all possible. That's the whole point. And yes, users may not hit >>>>>>> specific >>>>>>> problems, but devs do, and that wastes our time trying to figure out >>>>>>> how to >>>>>>> manually clean up the garbage. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 8:33 AM Rick Harding < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 6:56 PM Andrew Wilkins < >>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In a non-beta release we would make sure that the config changes >>>>>>>>> aren't backwards incompatible. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think this is the key thing. I think that kill-controller is an >>>>>>>> exception to this rule. I think we should always at least give the >>>>>>>> user the >>>>>>>> ability to remove their stuff and start over with the new alpha/beta/rc >>>>>>>> release. I'd like to ask us to explore making kill-controller an >>>>>>>> exception >>>>>>>> to this policy and that if tests prove we can't bootstrap on one beta >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> kill with trunk that it's a blocking bug for us. >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Juju-dev mailing list >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: >>>>>>>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Juju-dev mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: >>>>>>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>
-- Juju-dev mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
