Current handling of failed upgrades is screwy

[Menno Smits]

On 16 July 2014 22:36, David Cheney <david.cheney at canonical.com> wrote:

> If that is the blocker. Can we introduce a major version which does
> not change the schema at all. Then we know that everyone running Juju
> has a functional backup system. As I understand it, we require people
> to upgrade in order, without skipping versions.
>

Doing a stable release for exactly this reason (sooner than it might
otherwise happen) has already been discussed in some conversations.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju-dev/attachments/20140716/6c162a40/attachment-0001.html>