Re: A new development release of Juju, 2.1-beta4, is here!

2017-01-06 Thread John Meinel
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Merlijn Sebrechts < merlijn.sebrec...@gmail.com> wrote: > Some questions, because this sounds like something perfect for us. > > Does this work on MAAS or only openstack? > > Does this mean that I can put the constraint "has to be connected to > network x" on an ap

Re: Check out OpenStack PDX

2017-01-06 Thread Carlos Gonzales
Thanks James. I'll talk to my team and see if we can represent in the meetup. -Carlos On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 4:49 PM, James Beedy wrote: > I'm a regular at the Openstack Meetup here in Portland, and am the only > fellow repping Juju + Ubuntu Openstack. It would be really cool if people > from C

Check out OpenStack PDX

2017-01-06 Thread James Beedy
I'm a regular at the Openstack Meetup here in Portland, and am the only fellow repping Juju + Ubuntu Openstack. It would be really cool if people from Canonical who live in the northwest could show face at the Openstack Meetup too (if anything, so the juju community presence will be > 1). Find t

Re: A new development release of Juju, 2.1-beta4, is here!

2017-01-06 Thread Rick Harding
You will notice this is beta4 vs the rc1 we had been working toward. Part of 2.1 is an improvement to juju container networking that corrects issues that many users are facing. This updates Juju to only create bridges on a host machine only when a container is placed on the host and only for the s

A new development release of Juju, 2.1-beta4, is here!

2017-01-06 Thread Nicholas Skaggs
The Juju team would like to introduce Juju and conjure-up 2.1-beta4! ## What’s New Openstack Provider has been updated to support Neutron networking apis New APIs for querying instance types and characteristics available on clouds Model Migration is no longer behind a feature flag Instrumentat

Blind retries [Was: Opaque automatic hook retries from API]

2017-01-06 Thread Free Ekanayaka
Stuart Bishop writes: > I find destroy-service/remove-application is particularly problematic, > because the doomed units don't know they are being destroyed but rather is > informed about departing one relation at a time (which is inherently racy, > because the units the doomed service are relat

Re: Opaque automatic hook retries from API

2017-01-06 Thread Stuart Bishop
On 6 January 2017 at 01:39, Casey Marshall wrote: > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 3:33 AM, Adam Collard > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> The automatic hook retries[0] that landed as part of 2.0 (are documented >> as) run indefinitely[1] - this causes problems as an API user: >> >> Imagine you are driving Juju u