> Do you have a real world example at hand? No, why?
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Free Ekanayaka < free.ekanay...@canonical.com> wrote: > On 20 October 2016 at 16:09, Rye Terrell <rye.terr...@canonical.com> > wrote: > >> > Subordinate charms only make sense when collocated. And I would argue that >> subordinates are extremely common, at least in production environments. >> >> > In this context clean up is very important because it's not unusual >> for operators to switch technologies. For example replace telegraf with >> node-exporter >> or collectd. >> >> With that in mind, I'd like to reiterate one of my original questions: >> how do we handle cleanup in the case where two or more colocated charms >> have the same dependencies? In the case of background services, do we not >> stop & disable them? Do we stop & disable them and expect the remaining >> charms to repair the situation? >> > > Do you have a real world example at hand? > >
-- Juju mailing list Juju@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
