Bug 1642609: new model config defaults

[Michael Foord]

I created bug 1648426 to track discussion of which model config options 
should (if indeed any...) propagate by default.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju/+bug/1648426

Michael


On 07/12/16 21:37, Michael Foord wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I spent far longer than was reasonable working out why OIL were unable 
> to deploy workloads with juju 2.0.2 from the proposed stream.
>
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju/+bug/1642609
>
> The repro of the bug involved bootstrapping a xenial controller 
> creating several new models and deploying bundles into the models. The 
> Xenial machines would provision and trusty machines fail.
>
> The cause of the problem is actually by design, although I would argue 
> still insane and needs fixing. The agent-stream (proposed) is a 
> model-config option that is not propagated to new models. So for new 
> models the default stream is "released". The xenial agent is cached in 
> the controller, so new models can provision xenial machines from the 
> cached agent. When trying to provision a trusty machine the new model 
> looks in it's agent-stream, released, which does not have 2.0.2 tools 
> and thusly fails.
>
> There are three current workarounds:
>
> * If we promote 2.0.2 from proposed to released this specific problem 
> goes away...
>
> * After adding a new model you can set the agent-stream in the 
> model-config
>
> * Bootstrapping with "--model-default agent-stream=proposed" allegedly 
> does propagate config options to new models
>
> I am strongly of the opinion that at the very least a newly created 
> model should be capable of deploying workloads, which means that at 
> least a subset of model-config options should be propagated by default 
> to new models. This means at least, agent-stream, agent-metadata-url, 
> proxy settings etc.
>
> All the best,
>
> Michael Foord
>
>