Re: Proposal: making apt-get upgrade optional
On 03/07/14 03:27, John Meinel wrote: > local provider is special. It generates a template image, and runs "apt-get > update" once there, and then clones and doesn't ever run it again. Also, > the template isn't destroyed by "destroy-environment" which means if you > tried out the local provider 3 months ago, you'll still have a really old > template today. > Tim had intended to do more work here (provide a way to refresh the > template), but ran out of time to work on local provider stuff. > There's currently work in progress (as a background task, so it will get done eventually) to complete the work needed to allow the template to be refreshed. > Note this will also effect LXC deployments, as other people requested us to > use the template + clone on all clouds. > There's a config setting to turn this feature off (it's on by default). lxc-clone: false -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
Re: Trunk version? (1.21-alpha, 1.19.5?)
Ah ok, no problem. I was just confused where 1.19.5 came from. John =:-> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Curtis Hovey-Canonical wrote: > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 8:10 AM, John Meinel > wrote: > > I thought that since we split out the 1.19 series into the 1.20 branch > and > > are focused on stabilizing it there, trunk should actually be 1.21 rather > > than 1.19.5. Is that true? > > I selected 1.19.5 because 1.18.x panicked when I saw 1.20-beta1 in the > streams. I intended to change the version to devel version to > 1.21-alpha1 after 1.20.0 was released. > > I think 1.18.c is fine when it finds a 1.20.0 /before/ it finds a > version with an alpha in it. > > > -- > Curtis Hovey > Canonical Cloud Development and Operations > http://launchpad.net/~sinzui > -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
Re: Proposal: making apt-get upgrade optional
local provider is special. It generates a template image, and runs "apt-get update" once there, and then clones and doesn't ever run it again. Also, the template isn't destroyed by "destroy-environment" which means if you tried out the local provider 3 months ago, you'll still have a really old template today. Tim had intended to do more work here (provide a way to refresh the template), but ran out of time to work on local provider stuff. Note this will also effect LXC deployments, as other people requested us to use the template + clone on all clouds. John =:-> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Curtis Hovey-Canonical wrote: > On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Andrew Wilkins > wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 3:38 AM, Antonio Rosales > > wrote: > >> > >> Suggest we make an environments.yaml key value of say "apt-get-update" > >> set to a boolean with the default being "true". Existing charms are > >> timing out[0] when apt-get update is turned off due to stale apt-get > >> metadata. Users then can them make the choice, and we can make > >> suggestions in the docs as to what this key value means and how it can > >> improve performance especially in the developer scenario when the care > >> more about fast iterative deploys. > >> > >> Thoughts? > > > > > > I'm not suggesting we turn off update, just upgrade. We add repos > > (cloud-tools, ppa), so we need to update for juju's dependencies anyway. > I > > don't think my proposal will affect charms. > > > >> > >> [0] https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1336353 > \ > ^ ^ this bug implies juju is not running update or not running it at > the correct time time. This might be because provisioning for a charm > is different than provisioning a state-server? > > > -- > Curtis Hovey > Canonical Cloud Development and Operations > http://launchpad.net/~sinzui > > -- > 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
Re: Proposal: making apt-get upgrade optional
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Andrew Wilkins wrote: > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 3:38 AM, Antonio Rosales > wrote: >> >> Suggest we make an environments.yaml key value of say "apt-get-update" >> set to a boolean with the default being "true". Existing charms are >> timing out[0] when apt-get update is turned off due to stale apt-get >> metadata. Users then can them make the choice, and we can make >> suggestions in the docs as to what this key value means and how it can >> improve performance especially in the developer scenario when the care >> more about fast iterative deploys. >> >> Thoughts? > > > I'm not suggesting we turn off update, just upgrade. We add repos > (cloud-tools, ppa), so we need to update for juju's dependencies anyway. I > don't think my proposal will affect charms. > >> >> [0] https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1336353 \ ^ ^ this bug implies juju is not running update or not running it at the correct time time. This might be because provisioning for a charm is different than provisioning a state-server? -- Curtis Hovey Canonical Cloud Development and Operations http://launchpad.net/~sinzui -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
Re: Trunk version? (1.21-alpha, 1.19.5?)
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 8:10 AM, John Meinel wrote: > I thought that since we split out the 1.19 series into the 1.20 branch and > are focused on stabilizing it there, trunk should actually be 1.21 rather > than 1.19.5. Is that true? I selected 1.19.5 because 1.18.x panicked when I saw 1.20-beta1 in the streams. I intended to change the version to devel version to 1.21-alpha1 after 1.20.0 was released. I think 1.18.c is fine when it finds a 1.20.0 /before/ it finds a version with an alpha in it. -- Curtis Hovey Canonical Cloud Development and Operations http://launchpad.net/~sinzui -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
Trunk version? (1.21-alpha, 1.19.5?)
I thought that since we split out the 1.19 series into the 1.20 branch and are focused on stabilizing it there, trunk should actually be 1.21 rather than 1.19.5. Is that true? John =:-> -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
