On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 4:14 AM, roger peppe <roger.pe...@canonical.com> wrote: > Ooh, a proper bikeshed!
:) > > If this command is still doing the same thing it was when > I first wrote the original hack version, then it's more like > restore-state-servers-and-hope-that-nothing-much-changed-since-we-dumped. Pretty much. > > I'm guessing that Eric's issue with "restore" is that the word implies that > it restores the entire environment, which it does not. That's actually the problem I have with calling the whole thing "backups" when it's really state-DB-backups-plus-a-couple-other-key-state-artifacts. But that is a separate issue. * :) > But "recover" > has a similar issue. The problem I have with the name "restore" is that it implies we are going to fix up the state server (and possibly the environment) to match some earlier backup. Instead, we replace it with a new one and don't do anything about fixing the replicaset (if any existed). Furthermore, as you indicated, the machines in the restored state might not line up properly with the current set of instances in the environment. Restore doesn't clean up that situation either. > > Perhaps "dump-state" and "restore-state" might convey more > accurately what's being done here? You're probably right, though "restore" in the name still carries the same implications, in my mind though. -eric * I almost think the "juju backups" super command would be better named "juju state". backups would then be just a part of that. -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
