Unit number is increasing in latest juju version.

[Matthew Williams]

Hi Sunitha,

The bug is closed, it was fixed and released in juju 1.25.

There are some docs at the below link that summarise the behaviour:

https://jujucharms.com/docs/1.25/reference-numbering

If you'd like to have a talk about this I'd be very happy to. I'm mattyw on
irc in #juju and #juju-dev (otherwise email is fine)

Thanks

Matty



On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Sunitha Radharapu <sradhara at in.ibm.com>
wrote:

> Hi Matt,
>
> I am a little bit confused here, bug description says it should be as
> unique id. If it is a bug and you are going to fix in future juju releases
> then we no need to change our amulet tests.
>
> If it is a new feature then we will change our upcoming charms
> accordingly,
>
> Thanks,
> Sunitha.
>
>
>
>
> [image: Inactive hide details for Matthew Williams ---13-11-2015
> 20:32:45---Hi Mark, Sunitha, My apologies, I should have included the]Matthew
> Williams ---13-11-2015 20:32:45---Hi Mark, Sunitha, My apologies, I should
> have included the explanation in the original email.
>
> From: Matthew Williams <matthew.williams at canonical.com>
> To: Mark Shuttleworth <mark at ubuntu.com>
> Cc: Sunitha Radharapu/India/IBM at IBMIN, Juju email list <
> juju at lists.ubuntu.com>
> Date: 13-11-2015 20:32
> Subject: Re: Unit number is increasing in latest juju version.
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> Hi Mark, Sunitha,
>
> My apologies, I should have included the explanation in the original email.
>
> This was a change to address a long standing bug:
> *https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1174610*
> <https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1174610>
>
> There's a discussion in the bug report, but the summary is that in most
> cases it's desirable to have the unit id be unique across the life of an
> environment. Otherwise you loose the identity of a unit across relations.
>
> We were already numbering the machines in the same way, so this change
> also gives us consistency between machine and unit numbering systems.
>
> Thanks
>
> Matty
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Mark Shuttleworth <*mark at ubuntu.com*
> <mark at ubuntu.com>> wrote:
>
>
>    Thanks Sunitha. Matty, deeper question is - was this an intended change
>    in behaviour, and what's the rationale?
>
>    Mark
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju/attachments/20151113/020e4f94/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graycol.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju/attachments/20151113/020e4f94/attachment.gif>