On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Marco Ceppi <[email protected]> wrote: > While I completely agree, stable and devel are quite sensible (and now have > respective juju versions in each!), tools creates a bit of a kink in that > model. The majority of, if not all, tools we have (juju-deployer, > python-jujuclient, amulet, juju-plugins, and charm-tools, just to name a > few) are built from daily recipes and don't follow a traditional > stable/devel pattern. So we either duplicate the package creation between > stable/devel, do stable/devel releases for these tools (which is something > we may want to do in the future, I feel like we're revving too fast at the > moment with respect to each project, that this process might slow progress), > house them in a third and final ppa, or place them all in the stable PPA. If > we go with the last we tack "stable" to tools which may or may not be > stable, but make it slightly easier for users to manage and install (IE, if > you want devel release and tools, you simply add devel ppa and stable ppa. > If you want only the stable and tools you add stable) However, this adds an > issue if you want to install the distro version and tools, as you may also > get a juju-core upgrade from the ppa. As all of these tools are optional to > juju as a whole, so I don't quite feel they belong with the stable/devel > releases per se. > > Primarily, I'm still +1 on a ppa:juju/tools to house these additional juju > centric tools and document this as the "official" PPA. I know we're trying > to strike a balance between usefulness and having "too many" ppas, but if we > can get a consensus of either one finally third PPA or all in stable that > will be sufficient for me. I'm at the point now where this issue is blocking > a release of tools as I don't know where to put them.
This issue also came up if folks wanted a stable juju, but tools that are only housed in devel. The user would have to enable both stable and devel PPAs. The issue is when a user updates juju-core they will get the devel version, and not the expected stable version. Thus +1 on a tools PPA. -thanks, Antonio > > Thanks, > Marco Ceppi > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Mark Shuttleworth <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 25/07/13 02:18, Andreas Hasenack wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Marco Ceppi <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> I'm content with it being stable, tools, pkgs, anything really. If no one >>> objects to "stable" for the place to have tools revolving around the juju >>> product, then I'm sold. >>> >> >> Well, the two I built are not exactly "stable" in some senses of that >> word, since they are builds out from trunk, not released tarballs. I don't >> know if these projects will ever have releases, nor if that really matters. >> I have been using both for quite a while as branches. >> >> # >> stable, and devel, seem sensible. Put the stable stuff in... stable ;) >> >> -- >> Juju mailing list >> [email protected] >> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju >> > > > -- > Juju mailing list > [email protected] > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju > -- Juju mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
