Guys,
I was wondering if we're still having that LXC Troubleshooting Charm
School tomorrow at 19 UTC.
--
José Antonio Rey
--
Juju mailing list
Juju@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
We (mostly myself and Francesco Banconi, with some useful
input from Brad Crittenden) have put together a proposal for moving
towards making bundles a first-class citizen in Juju.
Please let us know what you think.
We (mostly myself and Francesco Banconi, with some useful
input from Brad Crittenden) have put together a proposal for moving
towards making bundles a first-class citizen in Juju.
Please let us know what you think.
According to the man git-show which only has an off-hand reference to -m:
Note also that you can give the `-m’ option to any of these commands to
force generation of diffs with individual parents of a merge.
That makes it sound like it shows *both* diffs. The diff of the merge
revision vs parent0
Some of my recent work with charming Cloud Foundry has led us towards a
slightly different understanding of bundles. In the case of something like
cloud foundry the topology will change between releases of their code, in
version 'b' they might add a new service that 'a' didn't have and in 'c'
they
On 19 June 2014 18:02, Benjamin Saller benjamin.sal...@canonical.com wrote:
Some of my recent work with charming Cloud Foundry has led us towards a
slightly different understanding of bundles. In the case of something like
cloud foundry the topology will change between releases of their code,
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 12:16 AM, Kapil Thangavelu
kapil.thangav...@canonical.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 5:04 PM, William Reade
william.re...@canonical.com wrote:
We're not changing any semantics; apart from anything else,
relation-broken does not depend on any remote unit.
its
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 5:14 AM, Andrew Wilkins
andrew.wilk...@canonical.com wrote:
If that's the case, why do we not just require charms to implement an
address-changed hook to update the relation setting then?
That way we don't break existing proxy charms, but other charms won't be
fixed
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 6:44 AM, William Reade william.re...@canonical.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 5:14 AM, Andrew Wilkins
andrew.wilk...@canonical.com wrote:
If that's the case, why do we not just require charms to implement an
address-changed hook to update the relation setting
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Benjamin Saller wrote:
Some of my recent work with charming Cloud Foundry has led us towards a
slightly different understanding of bundles. In the case of something like
cloud foundry the topology will change between releases of their code, in
version 'b' they might add a
10 matches
Mail list logo
