Unable to kill-controller
Andrew Wilkins
andrew.wilkins at canonical.com
Wed Apr 6 22:08:38 UTC 2016
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 5:55 AM Alexis Bruemmer <
alexis.bruemmer at canonical.com> wrote:
> Any reason why destroy-controller and kill-controller would not also
> remove the local reference (purge-controller)?
>
Destroy/kill will always do that. The question is only whether we should
have an additional command to remove, but not also kill/destroy.
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Tim Penhey <tim.penhey at canonical.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 06/04/16 23:13, Nick Veitch wrote:
>> > Sure, I am just concerned about a proliferation of commands to do the
>> > same (ultimately) task
>> >
>> > destroy-controller
>>
>> The most correct way to take down a controller.
>>
>> > kill-controller
>>
>> The OMG it is broken, please do as much as you can and I know I'm going
>> to have to manually check any resources left around that it couldn't
>> clean up.
>>
>> > forget/purge-controller
>>
>> Remove local references to the controller.
>>
>>
>> Not really the same things at all.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 6 April 2016 at 11:59, Horacio Duran <horacio.duran at canonical.com
>> > <mailto:horacio.duran at canonical.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> > The issue I see with that approach is that in that case
>> > kill-controller might be doing less than you expect instead of more,
>> > suppose the controller is having transient issues and kill
>> > controller cannot reach the cloud for deletion, this would forget
>> > the controller and leave it in the cloud, forget-controller instead
>> > tells us very clearly what is going to happen, the change is going
>> > to be local and not affect the controller.
>> > My 2c
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wednesday, 6 April 2016, Nick Veitch <nick.veitch at canonical.com
>> > <mailto:nick.veitch at canonical.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> > just my tuppence
>> >
>> > instead of having another command, can't we just add this as an
>> > option to kill-controller?
>> >
>> > juju kill-controller --cleanup <controller>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 6 April 2016 at 11:05, Horacio Duran
>> > <horacio.duran at canonical.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > I might be biased by years of apt-get but purge makes me
>> > think that you are going to do what kill is supposed to do,
>> > forget sound more aligned whit what you are really aiming
>> to.
>> >
>> > On Wednesday, 6 April 2016, Andrew Wilkins
>> > <andrew.wilkins at canonical.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 2:29 AM Cheryl Jennings
>> > <cheryl.jennings at canonical.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Relevant bug:
>> > https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1553059
>> >
>> > We should provide a way to clean up controllers
>> > without making the user manually edit juju's files.
>> >
>> >
>> > Unless anyone objects, or has a better spelling, I will
>> > be adding a command to do this:
>> >
>> > juju purge-controller <controller-name>
>> >
>> > The command will require a "-y" or prompt for
>> > confirmation, like kill-controller. It will not attempt
>> > to destroy the controller, it will just remove the
>> > details of it from the client.
>> >
>> > (Alternative suggestion for spelling: "juju
>> > forget-controller". Purge-controller may suggest that
>> > we're purging a controller of its contents, rather than
>> > purging the controller from the client?)
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Andrew
>> >
>> > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 7:05 AM, Nate Finch
>> > <nate.finch at canonical.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > This just happened to me, too. Kill-controller
>> > needs to work if at all possible. That's the
>> > whole point. And yes, users may not hit
>> > specific problems, but devs do, and that wastes
>> > our time trying to figure out how to manually
>> > clean up the garbage.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 8:33 AM Rick Harding
>> > <rick.harding at canonical.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 6:56 PM Andrew
>> > Wilkins <andrew.wilkins at canonical.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > In a non-beta release we would make sure
>> > that the config changes aren't backwards
>> > incompatible.
>> >
>> >
>> > I think this is the key thing. I think that
>> > kill-controller is an exception to this
>> > rule. I think we should always at least give
>> > the user the ability to remove their stuff
>> > and start over with the new alpha/beta/rc
>> > release. I'd like to ask us to explore
>> > making kill-controller an exception to this
>> > policy and that if tests prove we can't
>> > bootstrap on one beta and kill with trunk
>> > that it's a blocking bug for us.
>> > --
>> > Juju-dev mailing list
>> > Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com
>> > Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>> >
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Juju-dev mailing list
>> > Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com
>> > Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>> >
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Juju-dev mailing list
>> > Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com
>> > Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>> > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Nick Veitch,
>> > CDO Documentation
>> > Canonical
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Nick Veitch,
>> > CDO Documentation
>> > Canonical
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Juju-dev mailing list
>> Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Alexis Bruemmer
> Juju Core Manager, Canonical Ltd.
> (503) 686-5018
> alexis.bruemmer at canonical.com
> --
> Juju-dev mailing list
> Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju-dev/attachments/20160406/1d2e91ba/attachment.html>
More information about the Juju-dev
mailing list