Hey all
I'm sorry for the unnecessarily harsh tone in the OP, which was absolutely
not called for. Thank you all for stepping up to address it regardless.
I would like to calmly state that `doc/architectural-overview.txt` -- more
than a year old -- does state that all workers, whatever agent
Those workers below aren't the only ones. There's also minunits and peergrouper
workers.
No-one does these things on purpose. Just last week I caught and rejected a pull
request to introduce a new worker depending on state directly. People make
mistakes. Perhaps we should introduce a test which
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 6:14 AM Ian Booth wrote:
> Those workers below aren't the only ones. There's also minunits and
> peergrouper
> workers.
>
> No-one does these things on purpose. Just last week I caught and rejected
> a pull
> request to introduce a new worker
On 09/09/15 12:36, Horacio Duran wrote:
> There is lazy and there is also "I just based in that other worker"
> which happens, I am the proud parent of statushistorypruner and a
> rewrite is underway too, sorry.
Don't get me wrong, lazy developers are generally good. We try to find
the simplest
WORKERS", and what's more, making it a
> priority to change the existing ones to api workers.
>
> In case any one missed it, "NO MORE STATE WORKERS". Onyx will take the
> dblogpruner and txnpruner as we added those, and Menno already mentioned
> this.
>
> Bugs have bee
MORE STATE WORKERS". Onyx will take the
dblogpruner and txnpruner as we added those, and Menno already mentioned
this.
Bugs have been filed for the five workers using *state.State directly,
and have been added to the tech-debt kanban board.
https://canonical.leankit.com/Boards/View/11665166
You missed another worker that needs updating: envWorkerManager. Its use of
*state.State is a little less obvious.
Ticket and card added: https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1493606
On 9 September 2015 at 12:43, Tim Penhey wrote:
> On 09/09/15 12:36, Horacio
On 9 September 2015 at 12:51, Tim Penhey wrote:
> On 09/09/15 12:47, Menno Smits wrote:
> > You missed another worker that needs updating: envWorkerManager. Its use
> > of *state.State is a little less obvious.
>
> I had left that one off because I thought it only had