Juju - Staying "unsupported" for precise
mark at ubuntu.com
Fri Apr 13 06:05:40 UTC 2012
On 13/04/12 01:48, Clint Byrum wrote:
> The code quality is high, and the actual bugs in the code itself are
> quite low, which is something quite impressive given the complexity of
> managing a distributed system the way juju does. Kudos to the dev team
> for putting in place strong test requirements and quality guidelines from
> the get go. I just ran some test coverage reports, and we have over 96%
> test coverage for juju. We run these tests every time the package is
> built for 11.10 and 12.04, and for every commit to trunk as part of the
> "WaTerFall" tests at http://wtf.labix.org/
I want to second the kudos, for the work done to add important
capabilities to Juju but more specifically for the relentless focus on
quality and the actual practical expression of that focus in this
testing approach. In a similar vein, it's the laser focus and test
coverage of Upstart that makes me want to fight for it in the platform.
This is exactly the standard we should set for Canonical bits -
innovate, and do it with rigour and style.
> But, alas, the lack of security for the ZooKeeper connections is just
> too concerning for the security team. While this is fixable, there just
> wasn't time to do it without even more disruption of the already in flight
> features that were promised for 12.04. Indeed, we figured this out over
> a week ago, but we've all been so busy wrapping up all the other pieces
> of 12.04 and juju, that we didn't have time to get the word out.
> So, we've withdrawn juju from consideration for "main" in 12.04. We'll
> continue to push new versions to 12.04 users via PPA's and perhaps
> via backports.
This in no way reduces the value of juju, it's just a reflection of the
criteria we set for main, and the things we've chosen to focus on for
this release of juju. We feel it's more important to improve the
usability of juju in small teams and starting-out deployments, and the
team has hit the ball out of the park on those fronts. People using juju
seem absolutely delighted with what it does for them - the security
story is relevant only for deployments with larger numbers of
administrators who don't necessarily trust one another equally. We'll
knock that friction off in the next round - for now, I and others are
loving using Juju for our cloud deployments.
More information about the Juju