Synchronous Bootstrap

[Andreas Hasenack]

On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:41 PM, William Reade
<william.reade at canonical.com>wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Andreas Hasenack <andreas at canonical.com>wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Andrew Wilkins <
>> andrew.wilkins at canonical.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ahoy,
>>>
>>> Just wanted to inform everyone that synchronous bootstrap has landed on
>>> trunk. If you've got any scripts that bootstrap an environment and expect
>>> it to chug away in the background, then some script changes will be
>>> necessary.
>>>
>>>
>> Why not introduce this behavior via a switch to the existing bootstrap
>> command? Something like:
>>
>> juju bootstrap --wait
>>
>>  Then existing scripts wouldn't break.
>>
>
> Followup commands always waited for bootstrap to complete before they'd
> actually complete; the only negative impact should be that *if* you were
> expecting to do independent work in parallel with a bootstrap, that work
> will no longer be parallel. I'm very reluctant to maintain multiple code
> paths for bootstrap, especially given the many drawbacks of async bootstrap
> (lack of feedback, difficulty of diagnosing failure, unnecessarily complex
> behaviour communicating secrets to the environment) -- are there cases
> we've missed in which this change will actually stop anything working?
>
>
Don't get me wrong, I love synchronous bootstrap. I advocated for it a long
time ago. I was just wondering about backwards compatibility, and how much
do we promise to keep it at this stage.

This is the right time to try it (trunk) out, and if there are ill side
effects we will catch them in time. For starters, it will be interesting if
the CI setup will need any changes because of this.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju-dev/attachments/20131203/c35129eb/attachment.html>