Re: The future of Charm Helpers

2015-11-23 Thread James Page
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Merlijn Sebrechts < merlijn.sebrec...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi James > > > > Requiring that anything under the charms namespace is reactive aware is > fine - but lets make that 'aware' not 'required' please. > > I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Could

Re: The future of Charm Helpers

2015-11-23 Thread Stuart Bishop
On 23 November 2015 at 02:23, Marco Ceppi wrote: > Under this proposal, `charmhelpers.core.hookenv` would more or less become > `charms.helper` and items like `charmhelpers.contrib.openstack` would be > moved to their own upstream project and be available as

Re: The future of Charm Helpers

2015-08-12 Thread Christopher Glass
Small comment while mentioning charm-helpers: What I would really like to see is the project's tests running in CI, before things start moving around. The last few times we ran them we discovered many were broken (I suspect people need to put out fires and don't bother running the tests before

Re: The future of Charm Helpers

2015-08-12 Thread Christopher Glass
I personally don't care where the CI runs, as long as it runs :) Adding to that, it should run *for every merge proposal*, not just on trunk (when it's too late). Travis is a time and cost effective way to achieve this, but I'd be more than happy with whatever alternative solution. - Chris On

Re: The future of Charm Helpers

2015-08-12 Thread Adam Collard
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 at 12:12 Marco Ceppi marco.ce...@canonical.com wrote: Working with the Juju QA team to add a Jenkins job for test landing is a great idea, one we should certainly do now while we figure the rest of this out. FYI there's an already an outstanding request with Juju QA team

Re: The future of Charm Helpers

2015-08-12 Thread Marco Ceppi
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 7:17 AM Adam Collard adam.coll...@canonical.com wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 at 12:12 Marco Ceppi marco.ce...@canonical.com wrote: Working with the Juju QA team to add a Jenkins job for test landing is a great idea, one we should certainly do now while we figure the

Re: The future of Charm Helpers

2015-08-12 Thread Marco Ceppi
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 6:11 AM Stuart Bishop stuart.bis...@canonical.com wrote: On 11 August 2015 at 20:42, Marco Ceppi marco.ce...@canonical.com wrote: # Trimming down charm-helpers The first item, and arguably the largest is a complete reorganization of the current charm-helpers