Hi folks,
Last week the Onyx (Dave, Jesse, Menno, Tim) and Emerald (Casey, Matty,
Domas) teams met along with William to start work on the full support of
users within Juju.
This work builds on many other pieces that work together to be the
foundation of this work.
The work focused around the
There's an extant version incompatibility between 1.18 and 1.20 that was
highlighted during the 1.19 dev cycle which is unaddressed till the
unreleased 1.21 (http://pad.lv/1311227). We should treat compatibility
breakage as a blocker for stable releases.
Also in addition to the api cli,
I'm switching our various subprojects in the juju namespace on github
over to having landings gated by jenkins jobs that run their test
suites.
For most of us this should be pretty easy to deal with, the 'Merge
pull request' button will go away on the webpage as projects get
switched. When it
The API server side of backup made it into 1.20 (the client-side and
CLI did not). However, the API is exposed via HTTP POST rather than
through websockets RPC. We are correcting this right now. The
question is, are there any objections to removing backup from the
state API in 1.20 (or, less
On 29 July 2014 16:50, Eric Snow eric.s...@canonical.com wrote:
The API server side of backup made it into 1.20 (the client-side and
CLI did not). However, the API is exposed via HTTP POST rather than
through websockets RPC.
An HTTP POST request seems about right for a call that
streams a
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 6:57 PM, roger peppe rogpe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 July 2014 16:50, Eric Snow eric.s...@canonical.com wrote:
The API server side of backup made it into 1.20 (the client-side and
CLI did not). However, the API is exposed via HTTP POST rather than
through
On 29 July 2014 18:12, William Reade william.re...@canonical.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 6:57 PM, roger peppe rogpe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 July 2014 16:50, Eric Snow eric.s...@canonical.com wrote:
The API server side of backup made it into 1.20 (the client-side and
CLI did not).
Magicians.
I have updated the rules that test merges to abort when there are ci
regressions and the PR doesn't claim to fix one of them
Three bugs currently block merges into master. CI is looking for one
of these three token:
$$fixes-1347715$$
$$fixes-1342725$$
$$fixes-1342937$$
Since $$fixes-1342937$$ is already committed I changed the state by hand in
the bug report sorry I did not do that before, I forgot it was no longer
automatic.
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Curtis Hovey-Canonical
cur...@canonical.com wrote:
Magicians.
I have updated the rules that test
I'll fix 1342725 https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1342725.
Sorry that one hasn't gotten in earlier.
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Horacio Duran horacio.du...@canonical.com
wrote:
Since $$fixes-1342937$$ is already committed I changed the state by hand
in the bug report sorry I
But I'm a bit suspicious... would someone please confirm that we don't
have *any* released clients that use the POST API? The above is predicated
on that assumption.
The juju command line client hasn't yet seen changes to call the backup
POST API. The work was seemingly being done server
All,
Various people have been seeing the machine agents panic with the following
message:
panic: rescanned document misses transaction in queue
The error message comes from mgo but the actual cause is unknown. There's
plenty of detail in the comments for the LP bug that's tracking this. If
Thanks Martin.
I'd really appreciate an email to the juju-dev list as each juju
subproject is enabled. Can we get you to do that?
Cheers,
Tim
On 29/07/14 23:39, Martin Packman wrote:
I'm switching our various subprojects in the juju namespace on github
over to having landings gated by
We've got a database dump yesterday, which gives me something to
investigate. I'll spend some time on this tomorrow (today) and report back.
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 1:34 AM, Menno Smits menno.sm...@canonical.com wrote:
All,
Various people have been seeing the machine agents panic with the
14 matches
Mail list logo
