On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:13 PM, William Reade
william.re...@canonical.com wrote:
really ought to include a bunch more mechanism for finding out
*precisely* what should have been assigned to what
To be clear: I do not think we should do this, because the
interpretation of those entities would
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 6:16 PM, roger peppe roger.pe...@canonical.com
wrote:
On 10 February 2015 at 10:06, Andrew Wilkins
andrew.wilk...@canonical.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 5:57 PM, roger peppe roger.pe...@canonical.com
wrote:
On 10 February 2015 at 08:55, Andrew Wilkins
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 5:57 PM, roger peppe roger.pe...@canonical.com
wrote:
On 10 February 2015 at 08:55, Andrew Wilkins
andrew.wilk...@canonical.com wrote:
Hi all,
Ian raised a good point in http://reviews.vapour.ws/r/885/ (caution
advised,
may cause eyebleed) about a change I made
On 10 February 2015 at 08:55, Andrew Wilkins
andrew.wilk...@canonical.com wrote:
Hi all,
Ian raised a good point in http://reviews.vapour.ws/r/885/ (caution advised,
may cause eyebleed) about a change I made to errors:
https://github.com/juju/errors/pull/17
The NotAssigned error, which
I think that NotAssigned is *too* generic. UnitNotAssignedToMachineErr
is one thing, and VolumeNotAssignedToStorageInstance is another; if we
use the same error type to represent those distinct situations, we
really ought to include a bunch more mechanism for finding out
*precisely* what should
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10.02.2015 11:57, roger peppe wrote:
On 10 February 2015 at 08:55, Andrew Wilkins
andrew.wilk...@canonical.com wrote:
Hi all,
Ian raised a good point in http://reviews.vapour.ws/r/885/
(caution advised, may cause eyebleed) about a change I
