On 8 September 2014 16:10, Kapil Thangavelu <kapil.thangav...@canonical.com> wrote: > > you need to keep in mind the revision file will never match a local charm > version in the state server (it will at min be at least one higher than > that). This goes back to removing the need for users to manage the revision > file contents while in development or pass in the upgrade flag during dev, > the need was obviated by having the state server control the revision of the > charm.
Right, so even if I have an explicit number in a file, the revision reported by juju will/may be different. > i filed https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1313016 to cover this case > for deployer, so it could annotate vcs charms with their repo and rev since > local charm revisions are useless for repeatability as their independent of > content and determined soley by the state server (with the revision file > serving as a hint for min sequence value) and the available charms in the > state server are not introspectable. Right, +1ed. I wonder if a convention and juju annotations could supply this currently. Plus, a way to write annotations from the cli. Thanks -- Simon -- Juju mailing list Juju@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
