On 8 July 2014 03:23, Gustavo Niemeyer gust...@niemeyer.net wrote:
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Gustavo Niemeyer gust...@niemeyer.net
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 8:49 PM, David Cheney david.che...@canonical.com
wrote:
I don't want to introduce another thing to break CI, we already
+1 for stable APIs and versioned import statements. If we're worried about
the fact that gopkg.in is run by some random guy* then we're more than
capable of running our own redirector on Canonical's infrastructure.
Gopkg.in is open source, so we can easily get ours up and running with
just a
I think it would be a good idea if we moved towards
defining stable APIs, particularly for repositories
outside github.com/juju/juju itself.
In particular, I hope we can make go get work
without people needing to jump through the godeps hoop.
This is a particular issue as we move towards having
On 08/07/14 09:00, Ian Booth wrote:
gopkg.in is a decent solution to this problem, I believe, and
a good direction to head in general.
After discussion with (and approval by) several juju-core members,
we have pushed the new API to gopkg.in/juju/charm.v2 (the
code now lives in the v2 branch
On 7 Jul 2014 22:03, Tim Penhey tim.pen...@canonical.com wrote:
On 08/07/14 09:00, Ian Booth wrote:
gopkg.in is a decent solution to this problem, I believe, and
a good direction to head in general.
After discussion with (and approval by) several juju-core members,
we have pushed the
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Ian Booth ian.bo...@canonical.com wrote:
I'm somewhat wary of depending on an another unknown third party website
being
That's hilarious. I haven't been pushing for its usage on juju, and
I'm still not the one actively pushing it, but that's a pretty bad
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Ian Booth ian.bo...@canonical.com wrote:
It wasn't mean to be funny. I'm unsure why it's a bad argument. It's quite
prudent to ensure that critical infrastructure on which our development
depends
meets expectations with regard to uptime, reliability etc (a case
On 08/07/14 08:32, Gustavo Niemeyer wrote:
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Ian Booth ian.bo...@canonical.com wrote:
It wasn't mean to be funny. I'm unsure why it's a bad argument. It's quite
prudent to ensure that critical infrastructure on which our development
depends
meets expectations
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 8:49 PM, David Cheney david.che...@canonical.com wrote:
I don't want to introduce another thing to break CI, we already pull
from github which is bad enough, but going via gopkg.in introduces an
additional point of failure which can further reduce the already
bullet
On 08/07/14 13:49, Gustavo Niemeyer wrote:
go list -f '{{range .Deps}}{{printf %s\n .}}{{end}}' | grep gopkg.in
| sort -u | sed 's/\.v[0-9]\+$/\.vN/' | uniq -c | sed '/ 1 /d'
Yay pipes !?!?
--
Juju-dev mailing list
Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
10 matches
Mail list logo
