Re: Verification of proper model destroy in Azure

and decided to update the bug so whe, time to put things away for the night. On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 10:03 PM Rick Harding wrote: > I upgraded to b12 and repeated. The error is different in b12: > > juju status > ERROR unknown model:

Re: Verification of proper model destroy in Azure

I upgraded to b12 and repeated. The error is different in b12: juju status ERROR unknown model: "55459f0f-56c8-4f0b-8cf7-b8a1042df2aa" (not found) It's the same deal where you give a destroy, but it takes some 60+ seconds for status to give up the ghost. You get the lack of focus message on the

Re: Verification of proper model destroy in Azure

It's a timing thing. I bootstrapped with b11 on azure and will here's my shell history: https://pastebin.canonical.com/161089/ Note that after destroy the model was still around, I could switch of/to it, and it showed in the model list. It was somewhere in there were it finally went away. My

Verification of proper model destroy in Azure

*If* someone is in azure already can they please verify that they can destroy a model and get this message when running "juju status" in the destroyed model: "juju status ERROR no model in focus Please use "juju models" to see models available to you. You can set current model by running "juju

Re: juju beta upgrade woes

Daniel, sorry for the trouble there. As we work on things in the beta there are times when the upgrade from one beta to another might cause issues like this. You're hitting an incompatibility between the beta you were on and the latest. The only fix is to tear down and redeploy with the latest

juju beta upgrade woes

using juju-2.0 beta 9 or 10 I bootstrapped a local/lxd instance and installed wordpress on it.  The containers are running.  Now juju has upgraded to 2.0 beta 11 and "juju status" returns:  ERERROR connecting with bootstrap config: getting API info: model is not bootstrapped juju controllers

Re: RFC: remove juju publish?

+1, good catch thanks Tim. On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 3:15 AM roger peppe wrote: > Yes, it should be removed. It's superceded by charm push. > > On 15 July 2016 at 04:32, Tim Penhey wrote: > > Does 'juju publish' still serve a purpose in Juju 2.0? > >

Re: RFC: remove juju publish?

Yes, it should be removed. It's superceded by charm push. On 15 July 2016 at 04:32, Tim Penhey wrote: > Does 'juju publish' still serve a purpose in Juju 2.0? > > Should we just remove it? > > Tim > > -- > Juju-dev mailing list > Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify