Current handling of failed upgrades is screwy

[David Cheney]

+1<<32

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 9:49 PM, Menno Smits <menno.smits at canonical.com> wrote:
>
> On 16 July 2014 22:36, David Cheney <david.cheney at canonical.com> wrote:
>>
>> If that is the blocker. Can we introduce a major version which does
>> not change the schema at all. Then we know that everyone running Juju
>> has a functional backup system. As I understand it, we require people
>> to upgrade in order, without skipping versions.
>
>
> Doing a stable release for exactly this reason (sooner than it might
> otherwise happen) has already been discussed in some conversations.
>