hml | if the service for the image metadata is setup and named per the docs - it will be found automagically by juju based on the naming. | 00:00 |
---|---|---|
schkovich | hml: product-stream | 00:00 |
hml | and the service type is product-streams? | 00:01 |
schkovich | hml: yes | 00:01 |
hml | did the debug output list the URL juju was trying it? | 00:01 |
hml | you might need to list it as: http://10.0.8.52:80/swift/v1/simplestreams/images | 00:02 |
hml | if that’s how you set it up | 00:02 |
schkovich | hml: image-metadata-url: invalid URL "http://10.0.8.52:80/swift/v1/streams/v1/index.json" not found | 00:03 |
hml | can you download from the list I just listed? | 00:03 |
hml | if so , you can update your endpoint. | 00:04 |
hml | juju will add the streams/v1/index.json to the end itself | 00:04 |
schkovich | hml: http://10.0.8.52/swift/v1/simplestreams is giving me 200 OK | 00:11 |
hml | sounds like you just need to update the endpoint service url and/or the url given on the CLI | 00:12 |
schkovich | hml: yup, that was it :) | 00:13 |
schkovich | hml: of course, im missing correct instance type now :) | 00:14 |
schkovich | hml: anyway, thank you very much | 00:14 |
hml | schkovich: you’re welcome. | 00:15 |
hml | my openstack-novalxd is using the m1.medium instance type for the controller fwiw, and m1.small for a unit currently | 00:16 |
schkovich | hml: i did not create all flavours eg m1.medium is missing | 00:17 |
schkovich | hml: should be simple but it's 2am on my side of the globe. time to go to bed. i will continue tomorrow. :) | 00:17 |
hml | schkovich: sounds good :-) | 00:18 |
schkovich | hml: it's so easier when there is someone to discuss the problem with :) thanks once again | 00:18 |
axw | babbageclunk: thanks for the review. did I miss anything in the standup? | 01:17 |
axw | babbageclunk: https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/7646 | 01:54 |
=== arosales_ is now known as arosales | ||
=== coreycb_ is now known as coreycb | ||
babbageclunk | axw: sorry, was out - no, nothing much | 02:23 |
ashipika | hi core team.. any chance i could get a review of https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/7642 ? | 06:40 |
menn0 | ashipika: i'm just reviewing something else. i'll do yours next. | 08:13 |
ashipika | menn0: tyvm | 08:14 |
menn0 | ashipika: done | 08:47 |
rogpeppe1 | i've got a PR for a change to testing/checkers that will undoubtedly break juju tests (but in a good way, i'd suggest). https://github.com/juju/testing/pull/129 | 13:29 |
=== rogpeppe1 is now known as rogpeppe | ||
=== kjackal_ is now known as kjackal | ||
hml | crunchywelch: welcome - here’s the wiki link: https://github.com/juju/juju/wiki/Implementing-environment-providers | 17:21 |
crunchywelch | aaay, thanks! o/ | 17:23 |
babbageclunk | axw: I'm looking at PR 7649 now | 22:44 |
axw | babbageclunk: muchas gracias | 23:49 |
babbageclunk | axw: It looks good, except I'm confused by destroy methods with don't-destroy parameters. | 23:53 |
blahdeblah | any parameter on anything that says "don't do X" should be burned with fire | 23:54 |
axw | babbageclunk: you mean "juju remove-storage --no-destroy" ? | 23:55 |
axw | blahdeblah: happy to hear alternative suggestions to ^^ | 23:55 |
blahdeblah | axw: Pretty sure there's a bug about that which says that destroying should be non-default. :-) | 23:56 |
axw | blahdeblah: AFAIK there's only a bug that says destroying an application/unit shouldn't destroy the storage, and that's the case now | 23:56 |
blahdeblah | Ah, that might be the one I was thinking of. | 23:57 |
babbageclunk | axw: No, I'm fine with `remove-storage --no-destroy` - it's the methods internally that are called DestroyX but have a parameter that means that they don't destroy the x. | 23:58 |
axw | babbageclunk: ok. probably the API method, I'll check the review | 23:58 |
blahdeblah | I was referring more to the general case where code does X by default and then someone puts in an option to toggle the behaviour, and calls it "disable_X" which defaults to false rather than "enable_X" and defaulting to true. It just makes the logic more complex for the user to understand. | 23:58 |
babbageclunk | axw: I'd rather they were named in the same way as the command - RemoveX with an argument that says whether to also destroy. | 23:58 |
axw | babbageclunk: hmm I guess I'm OK with that. the main reason it's not Remote, is because of the distinction between Destroy and Remove in state | 23:59 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!