Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

Mark Shuttleworth writes: > We are already aligning things like terms and authentication so that > charms and snaps can be delivered together, though, so perhaps all > thats required is the ability to give the charm some say in update > control of snaps. Interesting, thanks,

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

> > As a developer, with an xfs-backed > s/xfs/zfs/ -- Juju mailing list Juju@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

> > As a developer, with an xfs-backed > s/xfs/zfs/ -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

On 15 December 2016 at 07:59, John Meinel wrote: > Right, the issue for test/development iterations is that "machine > requested to booted in cloud" for LXD is a lot closer to 10s. Especially if > you set "enable-os-refresh-update: false" and "enable-os-upgrade: false", >

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

On 16/12/16 07:33, Katherine Cox-Buday wrote: > Tim Penhey writes: > >> Make sure you also run on LXD with a decent delay to the APT archive. > Open question: is there any reason we shouldn't expect charm authors to take > a hard-right towards charms with snaps embedded

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

On 16/12/16 07:33, Katherine Cox-Buday wrote: > Tim Penhey writes: > >> Make sure you also run on LXD with a decent delay to the APT archive. > Open question: is there any reason we shouldn't expect charm authors to take > a hard-right towards charms with snaps embedded

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

On 16 December 2016 at 22:33, Katherine Cox-Buday < katherine.cox-bu...@canonical.com> wrote: > Tim Penhey writes: > > > Make sure you also run on LXD with a decent delay to the APT archive. > > Open question: is there any reason we shouldn't expect charm authors to >

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

On 16 December 2016 at 22:33, Katherine Cox-Buday < katherine.cox-bu...@canonical.com> wrote: > Tim Penhey writes: > > > Make sure you also run on LXD with a decent delay to the APT archive. > > Open question: is there any reason we shouldn't expect charm authors to >

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 09:33:18AM -0600, Katherine Cox-Buday wrote: > Tim Penhey writes: > > > Make sure you also run on LXD with a decent delay to the APT > > archive. > > Open question: is there any reason we shouldn't expect charm authors > to take a hard-right

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 09:33:18AM -0600, Katherine Cox-Buday wrote: > Tim Penhey writes: > > > Make sure you also run on LXD with a decent delay to the APT > > archive. > > Open question: is there any reason we shouldn't expect charm authors > to take a hard-right

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

Tim Penhey writes: > Make sure you also run on LXD with a decent delay to the APT archive. Open question: is there any reason we shouldn't expect charm authors to take a hard-right towards charms with snaps embedded as resources? I know one of our long-standing

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

Tim Penhey writes: > Make sure you also run on LXD with a decent delay to the APT archive. Open question: is there any reason we shouldn't expect charm authors to take a hard-right towards charms with snaps embedded as resources? I know one of our long-standing

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

Right, the issue for test/development iterations is that "machine requested to booted in cloud" for LXD is a lot closer to 10s. Especially if you set "enable-os-refresh-update: false" and "enable-os-upgrade: false", which are also likely to be set in a testing environment. John =:-> On Thu, Dec

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

Right, the issue for test/development iterations is that "machine requested to booted in cloud" for LXD is a lot closer to 10s. Especially if you set "enable-os-refresh-update: false" and "enable-os-upgrade: false", which are also likely to be set in a testing environment. John =:-> On Thu, Dec

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

Make sure you also run on LXD with a decent delay to the APT archive. That is what makes my local testing slow. Tim On 15/12/16 13:34, Marco Ceppi wrote: So, I wanted to circle back around to this thread. I think a lot of good feedback has come from this, and we're looking into making the

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

Make sure you also run on LXD with a decent delay to the APT archive. That is what makes my local testing slow. Tim On 15/12/16 13:34, Marco Ceppi wrote: So, I wanted to circle back around to this thread. I think a lot of good feedback has come from this, and we're looking into making the

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

So, I wanted to circle back around to this thread. I think a lot of good feedback has come from this, and we're looking into making the reactive framework leaner and better for charm authors. However, I ran a few deploy tests and have the following results: 15 Dec 2016 00:18:53Z workload waiting

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

So, I wanted to circle back around to this thread. I think a lot of good feedback has come from this, and we're looking into making the reactive framework leaner and better for charm authors. However, I ran a few deploy tests and have the following results: 15 Dec 2016 00:18:53Z workload waiting

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

On 09/12/16 06:32, John Meinel wrote: > > 1. "charm push cs:~jameinel/ubuntu-lite" fails ultimately with a TLS > timeout error: > ERROR cannot post archive: Post > https://api.jujucharms.com/charmstore/v5/~jameinel/ubuntu-lite/archive?.. > >

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

I think the actual path is to streamline reactive framework, so that Ubuntu is the simplest example of reactive. Anyone can, as Nate demonstrated, create a minimal charm. The feedback here is great so far and we're going to be iterating on the framework. Marco On Fri, Dec 9, 2016, 9:32 AM John

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

So I went ahead and did slightly more than the minimal charm: cs:~jameinel/xenial/ubuntu-lite It is essentially just installing Ubuntu, and in the Start hook, I do "status-set active" and report the Ubuntu version in "application-version-set". However, some feedback about the experience:

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

On 2 December 2016 at 06:27, Stuart Bishop wrote: > We might be able to lower deployment times from minutes to seconds, since > often this step is the main time sink. > Right. These are the time scales I meant too as well. If you want to have quality software you

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

On 1 December 2016 at 19:53, Marco Ceppi wrote: > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 5:00 AM Adam Collard > wrote: > >> On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 at 04:02 Nate Finch wrote: >> >> On IRC, someone was lamenting the fact that the

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

On 1 December 2016 at 19:53, Marco Ceppi wrote: > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 5:00 AM Adam Collard > wrote: > >> On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 at 04:02 Nate Finch wrote: >> >> On IRC, someone was lamenting the fact that the

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

So, the whole point of my original email was to say - if you want a minimal charm, just make one, it's easy. I just published my above mentioned minimal charm as cs:~natefinch/nop It's not showing up on jujucharms.com, maybe because charm proof is failing because it's missing everything except

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

So, the whole point of my original email was to say - if you want a minimal charm, just make one, it's easy. I just published my above mentioned minimal charm as cs:~natefinch/nop It's not showing up on jujucharms.com, maybe because charm proof is failing because it's missing everything except

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

Wouldn't it be possible for us to implement a configuration flag, and have it as default? Going back to the general point, the idea behind the ubuntu charm is to have a vainilla Ubuntu where you can work on anything. I understand we're mostly using it for testing, and reactive is now a big

Fwd: A (Very) Minimal Charm

Oops, forgot to reply to the list. -- Forwarded message - From: Adam Collard <adam.coll...@canonical.com> Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 at 13:43 Subject: Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm To: Marco Ceppi <marco.ce...@canonical.com> On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 at 12:53 Marco Cep

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

Marco, What is the issue you mentioned with using snaps where you mentioned needing an "unconfined classic snap"? On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Marco Ceppi wrote: > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 12:56 PM Casey Marshall < > casey.marsh...@canonical.com> wrote: > > On Thu,

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

Marco, What is the issue you mentioned with using snaps where you mentioned needing an "unconfined classic snap"? On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Marco Ceppi wrote: > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 12:56 PM Casey Marshall < > casey.marsh...@canonical.com> wrote: > > On Thu,

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 12:56 PM Casey Marshall wrote: On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Marco Ceppi wrote: On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 5:00 AM Adam Collard wrote: On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 at 04:02 Nate Finch

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Marco Ceppi wrote: > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 5:00 AM Adam Collard > wrote: > >> On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 at 04:02 Nate Finch wrote: >> >> On IRC, someone was lamenting the fact that the

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Marco Ceppi wrote: > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 5:00 AM Adam Collard > wrote: > >> On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 at 04:02 Nate Finch wrote: >> >> On IRC, someone was lamenting the fact that the

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

I hope that as you implement this, you avoid making fat charms. Can you use "resources" for this? Aaron On 2016-12-01 08:39 AM, Marco Ceppi wrote: > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 8:28 AM Free Ekanayaka > > wrote: > > On 1 December

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

On 1 December 2016 at 14:39, Marco Ceppi wrote: > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 8:28 AM Free Ekanayaka < > free.ekanay...@canonical.com> wrote: > >> On 1 December 2016 at 13:53, Marco Ceppi >> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 5:00 AM Adam

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

On 1 December 2016 at 14:39, Marco Ceppi wrote: > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 8:28 AM Free Ekanayaka < > free.ekanay...@canonical.com> wrote: > >> On 1 December 2016 at 13:53, Marco Ceppi >> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 5:00 AM Adam

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 8:28 AM Free Ekanayaka wrote: > On 1 December 2016 at 13:53, Marco Ceppi > wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 5:00 AM Adam Collard > wrote: > > On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 at 04:02 Nate Finch

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 8:28 AM Free Ekanayaka wrote: > On 1 December 2016 at 13:53, Marco Ceppi > wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 5:00 AM Adam Collard > wrote: > > On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 at 04:02 Nate Finch

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

On 1 December 2016 at 13:53, Marco Ceppi wrote: > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 5:00 AM Adam Collard > wrote: > >> On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 at 04:02 Nate Finch wrote: >> >> On IRC, someone was lamenting the fact that the

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

On 1 December 2016 at 13:53, Marco Ceppi wrote: > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 5:00 AM Adam Collard > wrote: > >> On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 at 04:02 Nate Finch wrote: >> >> On IRC, someone was lamenting the fact that the

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 5:00 AM Adam Collard wrote: > On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 at 04:02 Nate Finch wrote: > > On IRC, someone was lamenting the fact that the Ubuntu charm takes longer > to deploy now, because it has been updated to exercise more of

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 5:00 AM Adam Collard wrote: > On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 at 04:02 Nate Finch wrote: > > On IRC, someone was lamenting the fact that the Ubuntu charm takes longer > to deploy now, because it has been updated to exercise more of

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 at 04:02 Nate Finch wrote: On IRC, someone was lamenting the fact that the Ubuntu charm takes longer to deploy now, because it has been updated to exercise more of Juju's features. My response was - just make a minimal charm, it's easy. And then of

A (Very) Minimal Charm

On IRC, someone was lamenting the fact that the Ubuntu charm takes longer to deploy now, because it has been updated to exercise more of Juju's features. My response was - just make a minimal charm, it's easy. And then of course, I had to figure out how minimal you can get. Here it is: It's