On 16 June 2014 09:25, William Reade william.re...@canonical.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 2:58 PM, John Meinel j...@arbash-meinel.com wrote:
I feel like we should consolidate these fields. And if we need authTag
to match Login then we should be setting tag there instead. (That will be
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:42 PM, William Reade william.re...@canonical.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:39 AM, Andrew Wilkins
andrew.wilk...@canonical.com wrote:
Hi all,
I've started looking into fixing
https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1215579. The gist is, we
currently set
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:04 AM, roger peppe rogpe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 June 2014 09:25, William Reade william.re...@canonical.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 2:58 PM, John Meinel j...@arbash-meinel.com
wrote:
I feel like we should consolidate these fields. And if we need authTag
Since we are now trying to have everyone regularly rotate into a on-call
reviewer day, and one of the goals of OCR is that you should try to touch
all open reviews. However, I'm finding a bunch of things that have already
been reviewed quite thoroughly and look much more like we are just waiting
On 17 June 2014 10:02, John Meinel j...@arbash-meinel.com wrote:
Also, I do think we want to follow our old Rietveld behavior, where for each
comment a reviewer made, the submitter can respond (even if just with
Done). I realize this generates a lot of email noise, but it means that
any
I think you accidentally replied to just me, so I'm including juju-dev in
my reply.
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Wayne Witzel wayne.wit...@canonical.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:02 AM, John Meinel j...@arbash-meinel.com
wrote:
Since we are now trying to have everyone
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Andrew Wilkins
andrew.wilk...@canonical.com wrote:
Hi all,
I've started looking into fixing
https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1215579. The gist is, we
currently set private-address in relation settings when a unit joins, but
never update it.
I've
...
In a nutshell:
- There will be a new hook, relation-address-changed, and a new tool
called address-get.
This seems less than ideal, we already have standards ways of getting this
data and being notified of its change. introducing non-orthogonal ways of
doing the same lacks value
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 9:29 AM, John Meinel j...@arbash-meinel.com wrote:
...
In a nutshell:
- There will be a new hook, relation-address-changed, and a new tool
called address-get.
This seems less than ideal, we already have standards ways of getting
this data and being notified of
I tried to make CI pass by extending timeouts, retrying up to 10
times, and manually cleaning up envs after tests. but these 4 tests
failed.
The HP test fails because HP is lying about the available resources.
We know juju.1.18.4 works with HP so the upgrade failure is HP's fault
[1]
The
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Kapil Thangavelu
kapil.thangav...@canonical.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 9:29 AM, John Meinel j...@arbash-meinel.com
wrote:
...
In a nutshell:
- There will be a new hook, relation-address-changed, and a new tool
called address-get.
This
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 9:49 PM, Curtis Hovey-Canonical
cur...@canonical.com wrote:
I tried to make CI pass by extending timeouts, retrying up to 10
times, and manually cleaning up envs after tests. but these 4 tests
failed.
The HP test fails because HP is lying about the available resources.
CI tests deploy and upgrade in every CPC because I *think* these two
scenario test the provider and the streams that were placed in the
clouds. The upgrade test verifies stable juju understands the new
streams, can can upgrade to the next juju.
But does juju-upgrade have provider nuances? I don't
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Curtis Hovey-Canonical
cur...@canonical.com wrote:
CI tests deploy and upgrade in every CPC because I *think* these two
scenario test the provider and the streams that were placed in the
clouds. The upgrade test verifies stable juju understands the new
The steps to upgrade is not changed between providers (though as mentioned
local and manual might be a bit different). However, what *is* different is
the search paths for tools.
If you remember some of our earlier transitions, where we had to have 2
copies of the tools so that (e.g.) the 1.16
Well, given it is unit-get shouldn't it be more relation-get
private-address ?
The issue is *that* is give me the private-address for the other side of
this relation.
Which is not quite what you want.
And while I think it is true that many things won't be able to handle
binding to more than one ip
16 matches
Mail list logo
