2015-04-23 18:01 GMT+03:00 Vasiliy Tolstov v.tols...@selfip.ru:
Thanks for suggestions, i'm try to write simple wordpress charm and
check relations =)
Last question - what benefits of using simplerelation package or
writing own relations packages?
Also, why in case of registered relation
Juju developers,
I would like to announce Domas Monkus is a fully graduated Juju core
reviewer. This announcement is really long overdue.. Domas is careful
and thoughtful in his reviews, his feedback is useful, actionable and
relevant, and he's landed several significant improvements that
2015-04-23 11:00 GMT+03:00 roger peppe roger.pe...@canonical.com:
Nice start!
As far as I can see the issue is just that there's
a variant syntax of a relation that's allowed in the metadata
(I replied in the issue itself).
I had a brief look at your hooks.go file. I'd suggest that
it's
On 23 April 2015 at 16:01, Vasiliy Tolstov v.tols...@selfip.ru wrote:
2015-04-23 11:00 GMT+03:00 roger peppe roger.pe...@canonical.com:
Nice start!
As far as I can see the issue is just that there's
a variant syntax of a relation that's allowed in the metadata
(I replied in the issue
I don't ever see us moving a provider back behind a feature flag after we
move it out from one, but I agree with the point. If a user was using a
devel version and in a release, we moved a provider behind a flag, they
would stop working and their bootstrapped environment would be stuck, and
that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2015-04-23 12:27 AM, John Meinel wrote:
Thinking it through a bit more, I wonder if that is the best
option. Because if someone is already bootstrapped on CloudSigma
you really don't have any reason for it to not support CloudSigma.
It is just
Well, mostly good news after Matty and I landed workarounds. There's a
single remaining failure that has manifested since:
TestLeadership fails on windows test slave
https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1447595
On 22/04/2015, John Meinel j...@arbash-meinel.com wrote:
That sounds like it
Nice start!
As far as I can see the issue is just that there's
a variant syntax of a relation that's allowed in the metadata
(I replied in the issue itself).
I had a brief look at your hooks.go file. I'd suggest that
it's probably better to register the hooks individually,
rather than using the
On 17/04/2015, Martin Packman martin.pack...@canonical.com wrote:
I have put up a merge proposal making the error handling robust across
go versions, and removing the map interation confusion:
https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/2094
This should be on the 1.23 branch shortly.
Well, this was
