no beta/rc release today, schedule is Tues Sept 20th

tl;dr the Juju RC1 is scheduled to be built and released on Tues, Sept 20th The team would like to let everyone know that there will not be a beta or RC1 today as usual. The team has been working very hard to address the outstanding critical issues that need to be corrected before we claim that

Juju client now works properly on all Linuxes

Hi everyone, This is just a quick heads up about an improvement that will be in Juju 2.0 rc1. The Juju client has never really worked on flavours of Linux which we hadn't explicitly added support for (i.e. Ubuntu and Centos). This has now been fixed: the client will work on any Linux

Re: Juju client now works properly on all Linuxes

This is FANTASTIC news for those using the Snap! On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:53 PM Rick Harding wrote: > Thanks Menno, this is great stuff. > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016, 10:35 PM Menno Smits > wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> This is just a quick

Re: Juju client now works properly on all Linuxes

Thanks Menno, this is great stuff. On Thu, Sep 15, 2016, 10:35 PM Menno Smits wrote: > Hi everyone, > > This is just a quick heads up about an improvement that will be in Juju > 2.0 rc1. > > The Juju client has never really worked on flavours of Linux which we >

Re: Juju client now works properly on all Linuxes

Indeed ramp up the american Marco ramp it up! ;) On a more mundane note, that is very good news. -- Director Meteorite.bi - Saiku Analytics Founder Tel: +44(0)5603641316 (Thanks to the Saiku community we reached our Kickstart

Re: Reviews on Github

Reviewboard goes down a couple times a month, usually from lack of disk space or some other BS. According to a source knowledgeable with these matters, the charm was rushed out, and the agent for that machine is down anyway, so we're kinda just waiting for the other shoe to drop. As for the

Re: Reviews on Github

On 16/09/16 08:02, Ian Booth wrote: > Another data point - in the past, when we have had PRs which touch a lot of > files (eg change the import path for a dependency), review board paginates the > diff so it's much easier to manage, whereas I've seen github actually truncate > what it displays

Re: Reviews on Github

Another data point - in the past, when we have had PRs which touch a lot of files (eg change the import path for a dependency), review board paginates the diff so it's much easier to manage, whereas I've seen github actually truncate what it displays because the diff is "too large". Hopefully this

Re: Reviews on Github

On 16/09/16 03:50, Nate Finch wrote: > Reviewboard goes down a couple times a month, usually from lack of disk > space or some other BS. According to a source knowledgeable with these > matters, the charm was rushed out, and the agent for that machine is down > anyway, so we're kinda just

Re: Reviews on Github

On 16/09/16 08:54, Anastasia Macmood wrote: > On 16/09/16 08:02, Ian Booth wrote: >> Another data point - in the past, when we have had PRs which touch a lot of >> files (eg change the import path for a dependency), review board paginates >> the >> diff so it's much easier to manage, whereas

Re: Reviews on Github

Although I share some of Ian's concerns, I think the reduced moving parts, improved reliability, reduced maintenance, easier experience for outside contributors and better handling of file moves are pretty big wins. The rendering of diffs on Github is a whole lot nicer as well. I'm +1 for