Juju 2.3 beta2 is here!

[Tim Penhey]

On 09/11/17 13:06, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> On 11/07/2017 03:11 PM, John Meinel wrote:
>> ...
>>  
>>
>>     > Perhaps just:
>>     >
>>     >   juju deploy --map-machines A=B,C=D
>>     >
>>     > ... or some variant of that?
>>     >
>>     > Let's use the betas to refine and condense and clarify.
>>
>>     +1 to that. I'm wondering if use-existing-machines is ever appropriate
>>     on its own, as the machine numbers in a model are ephemeral but
>>     machine numbers in a bundle are static.
>>
>>
>> Feedback from Admins that one of their big use case really is for
>> bundle-a to lay down a definition/base charm across everything, and
>> bundle-b to be meant as an exact overlay, and all of the machine-ids
>> are exact matches. And having to specify 0=0,...50=50 is a lot of ugly
>> boilerplate.
> 
> I would expect that --map-machines means that machine numbers correspond
> UNLESS remapped. So your ugly boilerplate is not needed.

Been thinking more... how about this as a proposal:

I think we can combine both the --use-existing-machines and the
--bundle-machine into the single --map-machines:

So...

To use the existing machines as is:
  --map-machines existing

To only map two machines,
  --map-machines 1=2,2=3

To use existing, and map two machines
  --map-machines existing,1=2,2=3

Thoughts?

Tim