The issue I see with that approach is that in that case kill-controller might be doing less than you expect instead of more, suppose the controller is having transient issues and kill controller cannot reach the cloud for deletion, this would forget the controller and leave it in the cloud, forget-controller instead tells us very clearly what is going to happen, the change is going to be local and not affect the controller. My 2c
On Wednesday, 6 April 2016, Nick Veitch <nick.vei...@canonical.com> wrote: > just my tuppence > > instead of having another command, can't we just add this as an option to > kill-controller? > > juju kill-controller --cleanup <controller> > > > > On 6 April 2016 at 11:05, Horacio Duran <horacio.du...@canonical.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','horacio.du...@canonical.com');>> wrote: > >> >> I might be biased by years of apt-get but purge makes me think that you >> are going to do what kill is supposed to do, forget sound more aligned whit >> what you are really aiming to. >> >> On Wednesday, 6 April 2016, Andrew Wilkins <andrew.wilk...@canonical.com >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','andrew.wilk...@canonical.com');>> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 2:29 AM Cheryl Jennings < >>> cheryl.jenni...@canonical.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Relevant bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1553059 >>>> >>>> We should provide a way to clean up controllers without making the user >>>> manually edit juju's files. >>>> >>> >>> Unless anyone objects, or has a better spelling, I will be adding a >>> command to do this: >>> >>> juju purge-controller <controller-name> >>> >>> The command will require a "-y" or prompt for confirmation, like >>> kill-controller. It will not attempt to destroy the controller, it will >>> just remove the details of it from the client. >>> >>> (Alternative suggestion for spelling: "juju forget-controller". >>> Purge-controller may suggest that we're purging a controller of its >>> contents, rather than purging the controller from the client?) >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Andrew >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 7:05 AM, Nate Finch <nate.fi...@canonical.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> This just happened to me, too. Kill-controller needs to work if at >>>>> all possible. That's the whole point. And yes, users may not hit >>>>> specific >>>>> problems, but devs do, and that wastes our time trying to figure out how >>>>> to >>>>> manually clean up the garbage. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 8:33 AM Rick Harding < >>>>> rick.hard...@canonical.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 6:56 PM Andrew Wilkins < >>>>>> andrew.wilk...@canonical.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> In a non-beta release we would make sure that the config changes >>>>>>> aren't backwards incompatible. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I think this is the key thing. I think that kill-controller is an >>>>>> exception to this rule. I think we should always at least give the user >>>>>> the >>>>>> ability to remove their stuff and start over with the new alpha/beta/rc >>>>>> release. I'd like to ask us to explore making kill-controller an >>>>>> exception >>>>>> to this policy and that if tests prove we can't bootstrap on one beta and >>>>>> kill with trunk that it's a blocking bug for us. >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Juju-dev mailing list >>>>>> Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com >>>>>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: >>>>>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Juju-dev mailing list >>>>> Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com >>>>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: >>>>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> -- >> Juju-dev mailing list >> Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com');> >> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev >> >> > > > -- > Nick Veitch, > CDO Documentation > Canonical >
-- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
