On 20 February 2016 at 03:47, José Antonio Rey <j...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > Hello, > > In approximately two months, Xenial is going to be released. Once that > happens, we are going to have three supported LTS releases: precise, trusty > and xenial. > > I know that there is some people that have both precise and trusty charms. > However, if they want to move their charms to xenial, they are going to have > to maintain not two, but three charms. And if we want to have the latest in > all charms, then features and software versions would have to be backported > all the way to precise, which may complicate things a bit more. > > I'm wondering, would it be suitable for us to establish a process where a > charm author decides to no longer maintain a charm in an old but supported > release and just move that specific series charm to ~unmaintained-charms? I > think it's better to start thinking on this now, before it gets too close to > release time. > > Happy to hear all your comments/suggestions on this.
I already have charms with deprecated precise branches, used for some very old legacy installs. With the 2.0 release and charm store updates, I will also want to deprecate the trusty branches in favor of a series-independent branch. I've already started this, moving the PostgreSQL source layer to launchpad.net/postgresql-charm.The trusty bzr branch will just be a hindrance when it is no longer needed for ingestion into the charm store. It is my understanding that the charm store will accept the series independent branch and produce cs:trusty/foo series dependent blobs for older Juju clients. There is still an open bug about allowing Juju 1.25 to deploy series independent branches or local charms without hacking (https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1545686, not a huge issue since with a local branch you can easily hack metadata.yaml). -- Stuart Bishop <stuart.bis...@canonical.com> -- Juju mailing list Juju@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
