PPAs for juju api client and deployer

[Mark Canonical Ramm-Christensen]

I don't at all want to argue for slowing progress, and while I
recognize the cost of maintaining devel/stable releases I don't think
that a "tools" ppa is the answer. We are not in a place where nightly
builds of all the tools provides our users with a "good enough"
experience.  We have had tool releases that only work with specific
versions of core, and that results in an /unfortunate/ user
experience.

So, I'm still going to argue for stable/devel PPA's for all the "key tools."

But, If a specific tool is not ready for stable/devel that is fine --
it should have it's own PPA and people should have to add it manually.
 This makes it clear exactly where it stands with relationship to the
main juju project (it is outside of the "supported" pathway and it's
use is experimental).

But if we are telling people they *need* to use a specific tool, we
should at the very least be providing them development versions that
they can file bugs against. And furthermore if we want to officially
endorse a tool we should be putting it in a standard devel PPA.

Beyond that, if we are going to support it's use in commercial
engagements -- we need to have a "stable" version in the stable PPA.

For devel at least, we can still do this by using a recipe off a
branch or tag in the repo, so this should just be as simple as
deciding that the nightly build from some day is "good enough" for
devel, and setting it up.  For stable, I would love to have this gated
by at least a very basic integration test, and perhaps run using a
recipe that gets tarballs of all the source and builds from there so
that it is entirely reproducible.

We can't keep building stuff that is not tested together and expecting
users to have a great "it just works" experience. So, to sum up, If
tools are not yet at a state where we can provide that experience, we
should not be officially endorsing them, and if they are, the work
required to add them to stable/devel PPA's will pay off in better user
experience.

On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Marco Ceppi <marco at ondina.co> wrote:
> While I completely agree, stable and devel are quite sensible (and now have
> respective juju versions in each!), tools creates a bit of a kink in that
> model. The majority of, if not all, tools we have (juju-deployer,
> python-jujuclient, amulet, juju-plugins, and charm-tools, just to name a
> few) are built from daily recipes and don't follow a traditional
> stable/devel pattern. So we either duplicate the package creation between
> stable/devel, do stable/devel releases for these tools (which is something
> we may want to do in the future, I feel like we're revving too fast at the
> moment with respect to each project, that this process might slow progress),
> house them in a third and final ppa, or place them all in the stable PPA. If
> we go with the last we tack "stable" to tools which may or may not be
> stable, but make it slightly easier for users to manage and install (IE, if
> you want devel release and tools, you simply add devel ppa and stable ppa.
> If you want only the stable and tools you add stable) However, this adds an
> issue if you want to install the distro version and tools, as you may also
> get a juju-core upgrade from the ppa. As all of these tools are optional to
> juju as a whole, so I don't quite feel they belong with the stable/devel
> releases per se.
>
> Primarily, I'm still +1 on a ppa:juju/tools to house these additional juju
> centric tools and document this as the "official" PPA. I know we're trying
> to strike a balance between usefulness and having "too many" ppas, but if we
> can get a consensus of either one finally third PPA or all in stable that
> will be sufficient for me. I'm at the point now where this issue is blocking
> a release of tools as I don't know where to put them.
>
> Thanks,
> Marco Ceppi
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Mark Shuttleworth <mark at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 25/07/13 02:18, Andreas Hasenack wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Marco Ceppi <marco.ceppi at canonical.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm content with it being stable, tools, pkgs, anything really. If no one
>>> objects to "stable" for the place to have tools revolving around the juju
>>> product, then I'm sold.
>>>
>>
>> Well, the two I built are not exactly "stable" in some senses of that
>> word, since they are builds out from trunk, not released tarballs. I don't
>> know if these projects will ever have releases, nor if that really matters.
>> I have been using both for quite a while as branches.
>>
>> #
>> stable, and devel, seem sensible. Put the stable stuff in... stable ;)
>>
>> --
>> Juju mailing list
>> Juju at lists.ubuntu.com
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
>>
>
>
> --
> Juju mailing list
> Juju at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
>