I am working on writing a Juju charm to deploy the Discourse discussion
forum software using their new docker image install process. This was my
first charm, and I'm writing it in Go, because I like Go. This means I
can't use the python charm helpers, but since I don't actually know what
they do,
>
> ...
>
> Have I mentioned how much I hate YAML? Is it possible to write the config
> in JSON or something instead? JSON's no picnic either, but at least it
> doesn't care about white space. I'd recommend TOML, but I doubt the
> conservative dev-ops people would go for it. Ideally we'd supp
On 4 September 2014 14:26, John Meinel wrote:
>> Deploying a local charm is needlessly complex. Why do I need to create a
>> special directory structure, move my code under there, set --repository and
>> write local: and even then it has to go scanning through the directory,
>> looking for a char
...
>
> The only sane way I see is for the charm to declare what series it
> supports, probably in its metadata.yaml. In practice, we regularly
> deploy branches targetted to precise to trusty and vice versa because
> one branch supports both series and the branch on the other series
> just an un
On 4 September 2014 16:30, John Meinel wrote:
> ...
>
>>
>>
>> The only sane way I see is for the charm to declare what series it
>> supports, probably in its metadata.yaml. In practice, we regularly
>> deploy branches targetted to precise to trusty and vice versa because
>> one branch supports bo
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 3:26 AM, John Meinel wrote:
...
> At the very least we need to know what OS Series the charm is targeting.
> Which is currently only inferred from the path. I don't particularly like
> it, and I think the code that searches your whole repository and then picks
> the "best" o
given that we currently use the path, you can't have one charm for multiple
series anyway. This would at least be better than what we have right now,
and would be backwards compatible (older jujus would just require the old
style local deploy and would ignore the extra series specification in the
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 3:26 AM, John Meinel wrote:
> ...
>>
>
>
>> Have I mentioned how much I hate YAML? Is it possible to write the
>> config in JSON or something instead? JSON's no picnic either, but at least
>> it doesn't care about white space. I'd recommend TOML, but I doubt the
>> conse
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 5:04 AM, Nate Finch wrote:
> given that we currently use the path, you can't have one charm for multiple
> series anyway.
For deploying local: charms, symlinks work fine here.
> This would at least be better than what we have right now,
> and would be backwards compatible
On 4 September 2014 20:13, Nate Finch wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 3:26 AM, John Meinel wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Have I mentioned how much I hate YAML? Is it possible to write the
>>> config in JSON or something instead? JSON's no picnic either, but at least
>>> it doesn't care about
On 4 September 2014 20:13, Nate Finch wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 3:26 AM, John Meinel wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Have I mentioned how much I hate YAML? Is it possible to write the
>>> config in JSON or something instead? JSON's no picnic either, but at least
>>> it doesn't care about
11 matches
Mail list logo
