Charm Testing Spec Proposal

Clint Byrum clint at
Fri Feb 3 20:57:35 UTC 2012

Excerpts from Gustavo Niemeyer's message of Wed Feb 01 12:47:27 -0800 2012:
> > I wouldn't mind at all, it just hasn't happened yet. I don't have lbox,
> > haven't taken time to set it up, and don't know of anybody else in
> > ~charmers using it for work done on charm-tools or charms.
> So how about starting now?
> > I'm sure its just a few lines of setup, but its another point of re-focus
> > in an already blurry space. Can we perhaps delay introduction of this
> > tool and workflow change until such time as we can give it the attention
> > it needs?
> Yes, it's a *trivial* setup, and will help people to take the time to
> review your proposal. I don't think I'm being unfair.. you're asking
> me to review your whole spec, and I'm asking you to type "lbox
> propose" within your branch.

Done, and agreed, lbox is very trivial to use, though I'm still not at
all comfortable with rietveld. I'm sure I'll learn.

I also realize that lp:charm-tools is not the place for this spec,
as anything that defines the intended content of charms should be in
juju's docs directly.

I've removed it from charm-tools, and pushed it up, unchanged, using lbox.

More information about the Juju mailing list