On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Andrew Wilkins
andrew.wilk...@canonical.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 1:32 AM, Nate Finch nate.fi...@canonical.com
wrote:
That is awesome. I presume that means we can re-re-re-enable HA on
local provider? At least Michael has all the code to do so
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Menno Smits menno.sm...@canonical.com
wrote:
I've noticed that the commit messages for the merges performed by the Juju
bot don't include the PR title. This can lead to some slightly odd commit
logs.
For example, have a look at PR #13. The merge commit
On 6 June 2014 14:20, William Reade william.re...@canonical.com wrote:
Thanks for these very useful and constructive remarks. I now
understand better where the original proposal was coming from.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 11:34 AM, roger peppe rogpe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 June 2014 23:16, Tim
Tim,
Have you reached out to the charm author with these questions as well? That
would be where I would start. They are great questions that deserve an
answer, as I'm sure you're not the only user that will have them. This is
an area that the python-django charm (in series trusty - to be clear
I did something like this though I didnt use the python-django charm
https://github.com/battlemidget/juju-apache-gunicorn-django
You may be able to get some ideas from that
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Tim Penhey tim.pen...@canonical.com wrote:
Hi all,
I'm looking at using the
OK, this has gone WAY beyond any reasonable work for this work item.
I agree that we may well want to change how we store things on disk, but
I won't be doing that for this work. If we are going to do this, and I
can see some benefits of doing it, it needs to be spec'ed out as an
independent
