Re: Automatic retries of hooks

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:41 AM, William Reade wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Rick Harding > wrote: > >> +1 retries are great, with backoff, when you know you're doing it because >> you have experience that certain api

Re: Automatic retries of hooks

Hi, It seems the original point James was making is getting missed. No one is arguing over the value of being able to retry and/or idempotent hooks. Yes, you should be able to retry them and yes nothing should break if you run them over and over. The point made is that Juju shouldn't be

Re: LXD polish for xenial

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 6:43 AM, John Meinel wrote: > ... > >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 2:17 PM Martin Packman < >>> martin.pack...@canonical.com> wrote: >>> When it comes to using lxd in clouds, as I understand it we've settled on retaining the 'lxc' and 'lxd'

Re: LXD polish for xenial

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:39 PM, John Meinel wrote: > ... > > >> So the plan as I understand it is that we're planning on updating Bundles >>> to use the term "lxd" as the container they are requesting. And then >>> updating the deployer and other tools to understand

Re: New releases of Juju 2.2.0 and conjure-up 2.2.0 are here!

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Burton Swan wrote: > We are excited to announce the release of Juju 2.2.0 and conjure-up 2.2.0! > This release greatly enhances memory and CPU utilisation at scale, improves > the modelling of networks, and adds support for KVM