local provider

[Kapil Thangavelu]

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Curtis Hovey-Canonical <
curtis at canonical.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Kapil Thangavelu
> <kapil.thangavelu at canonical.com> wrote:
>
> > first as you say its people first experience with juju and the way its
> > deployment usage fits very well with some folks production needs ( ie. i
> > have a  big machine in the corner and juju can deploy workloads on it). I
> > think the issue primarily is that of implementation, and the mindset
> among
> > developers/implementers that we don't support it.
> >
> > Most of the reasons why its different on an implementation level
> disappear
> > with lxd, at which point we should support it for dev and prod.
>
> Do you mean local-provider would be less devel/demo if the
> state-server was place in a container (machine-0) instead of co-opting
> localhost to be machine-0?
>
>
nutshell yes that's one major improvement. but there's a long list of
improvements to the local provider to make it less flakey and given its
often developers first introduction to juju i don't think we should be
treating it as a second class citizen. it sounds like marco is going to try
and paper over some of them with a plugin, but i think we should be looking
at a fresh start based on lxd.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju-dev/attachments/20141218/69c7a6ed/attachment.html>