On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 12:36 PM, John Meinel wrote:
> I'll also note that Tim had some good ideas about how to change the Local
> provider to be more consistent with other providers. (Essentially creating
> a separate process that could implement a "Remote Provider" sort of
> interface.) That cou
Just wanted to say, awesome work. I love it, and definitely +1 for a
packaged version.
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Casey Marshall <
casey.marsh...@canonical.com> wrote:
> All,
> I'd like to share a small set of juju plugins I've developed:
>
> https://github.com/cmars/juju-nat
>
> The juju
The Wednesday 07 May 2014 à 10:38:44 (+1200), Tim Penhey wrote :
> Yeah, unfortunately the remote provider and hence local provider
> improvements that I wanted has been bumped for this cycle. It is
> possible that some work will be done to improve the writing of providers
> but it will be slow an
Yeah, unfortunately the remote provider and hence local provider
improvements that I wanted has been bumped for this cycle. It is
possible that some work will be done to improve the writing of providers
but it will be slow and a non-primary task.
With regard to local storage, yes, this cycle (nex
Yeah, using a command line application to talk to a provider seems like the
best way to go. That's the usual way to make things pluggable in Go, and
fits our use cases quite well. It's definitely something I think we should
do, but I'm not sure it's that high on the priority list right now.
On
