On 19 November 2014 at 19:59, William Reade wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Stuart Bishop
> wrote:
>> Ok. If there is a goal state, and I am able to wait until the goal
>> state is the actual state, then my needs (and amulet and juju-deployer
>> needs) will be met. It does seem a rather
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Stuart Bishop
wrote:
> Ok. If there is a goal state, and I am able to wait until the goal
> state is the actual state, then my needs (and amulet and juju-deployer
> needs) will be met. It does seem a rather lengthy and long winded way
> of getting there though. The
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 7:19 AM, Kapil Thangavelu
wrote:
>
> for clusters... its not a question of futures but being informed of known
> unit count to establish quorum. ie 1 to 3 or n+1. leader election helps, but
> actually knowing the unit count is critical to being able to establish a
> clear s
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 3:19 AM, Kapil Thangavelu
wrote:
>
> status per future impl helps, as does explicitly marking units.. but pending
> cluster count is a missing and important property to properly establish
> quorum in a peer rel from one to n that is only resolved by knowing recorded
> units
On 18 November 2014 12:23, Ian Booth wrote:
> On 17/11/14 15:47, Stuart Bishop wrote:
>> On 17 November 2014 07:13, Ian Booth wrote:
>>
>>> The new Juju Status work planned for this cycle will hopefully address the
>>> main
>>> concern about knowing when a deployed charm is fully ready to do th
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:23 PM, Ian Booth wrote:
>
>
> On 17/11/14 15:47, Stuart Bishop wrote:
> > On 17 November 2014 07:13, Ian Booth wrote:
> >
> >> The new Juju Status work planned for this cycle will hopefully address
> the main
> >> concern about knowing when a deployed charm is fully re
On 17/11/14 15:47, Stuart Bishop wrote:
> On 17 November 2014 07:13, Ian Booth wrote:
>
>> The new Juju Status work planned for this cycle will hopefully address the
>> main
>> concern about knowing when a deployed charm is fully ready to do the work for
>> which it was installed. ie the curre
On 17 November 2014 07:13, Ian Booth wrote:
> The new Juju Status work planned for this cycle will hopefully address the
> main
> concern about knowing when a deployed charm is fully ready to do the work for
> which it was installed. ie the current situation whereby a unit is marked as
> Started
On 15/11/14 15:44, Stuart Bishop wrote:
> On 14 November 2014 22:31, Mario Splivalo
> wrote:
>> Hello, good people!
>>
>> How hard would it be to implement 'showing running relations in juju
>> status'?
>>
>> Currently there is no easy (if any) way of knowing the state of the
>> deployment. Whe
On 14 November 2014 22:31, Mario Splivalo wrote:
> Hello, good people!
>
> How hard would it be to implement 'showing running relations in juju
> status'?
>
> Currently there is no easy (if any) way of knowing the state of the
> deployment. When one does 'juju add-relation' the relation hooks are
Hello, good people!
How hard would it be to implement 'showing running relations in juju
status'?
Currently there is no easy (if any) way of knowing the state of the
deployment. When one does 'juju add-relation' the relation hooks are
run, but there is no feedback on weather the hooks are still r
11 matches
Mail list logo
