Hey all
As has been mentioned previously in this list, for the Juju 2.0 release we have
been working on fundamental terminology changes. In particular, we now talk
about controllers and models instead of state servers and environments.
To this end, a rather large change has landed in master and t
FYI, I noticed ServiceDeployWithNetworks still exists as a client and
facade method, but it's only called by tests. Maybe it should be removed?
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016, 8:34 PM Ian Booth wrote:
> Hey all
>
> As has been mentioned previously in this list, for the Juju 2.0 release we
> have
> been wor
Yeah, there's a couple of places that need a bit of cleanup. With that one, I
needed to double check existing call points before deleting, and ran out of time
before needing to do the merge. But the intent is to delete it.
On 03/02/16 12:53, Nate Finch wrote:
> FYI, I noticed ServiceDeployWithNetw
Very exciting to see these bits landing now! I'm looking forward to the
alpha and trying out all the commands
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 12:05 AM Ian Booth wrote:
> Yeah, there's a couple of places that need a bit of cleanup. With that
> one, I
> needed to double check existing call points before de
Thanks for this in-depth break-down, Ian. It really helps.
-eric
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Ian Booth wrote:
> Hey all
>
> As has been mentioned previously in this list, for the Juju 2.0 release we
> have
> been working on fundamental terminology changes. In particular, we now talk
> abou
What did we end up doing for Login? I'm thinking it would be good to keep a
v1 login around that would tell <=1.25 clients that they need a different
version of their client to talk to this server.
John
=:->
On Feb 3, 2016 9:03 PM, "Eric Snow" wrote:
> Thanks for this in-depth break-down, Ian.
v1 login (and v0) are still there more or less for that purpose (but not done
yet).
Actually, the login api is the only api that has not had a version bump. We
still have v2 as it existed in 1.25. That will need to be fixed as it got
missed.
On 04/02/16 13:58, John Meinel wrote:
> What did we
