Revision file on charms

Simon Davy bloodearnest at
Mon Sep 8 15:33:37 UTC 2014

On 8 September 2014 16:10, Kapil Thangavelu
<kapil.thangavelu at> wrote:
> you need to keep in mind the revision file will never match a local charm
> version in the state server (it will at min be at least one higher than
> that). This goes back to removing the need for users to manage the revision
> file contents while in development or pass in the upgrade flag during dev,
> the need was obviated by having the state server control the revision of the
> charm.

Right, so even if I have an explicit number in a file, the revision
reported by juju will/may be different.

> i filed to cover this case
> for deployer, so it could annotate vcs charms with their repo and rev since
> local charm revisions are useless for repeatability as their independent of
> content and determined soley by the state server (with the revision file
> serving as a hint for min sequence value) and the available charms in the
> state server are not introspectable.

Right, +1ed.

I wonder if a convention and juju annotations could supply this
currently. Plus, a way to write annotations from the cli.



More information about the Juju mailing list