1929
|
|
|
Frank Mueller |
10 years ago
|
|
|
1928
|
|
|
Frank Mueller |
10 years ago
|
|
|
1927
|
|
|
John Arbash Meinel |
10 years ago
|
|
|
1926
|
|
|
Roger Peppe |
10 years ago
|
|
|
1925
|
|
|
William Reade |
10 years ago
|
|
|
1924
|
|
|
Roger Peppe |
10 years ago
|
|
|
1923
|
|
|
Andrew Wilkins |
10 years ago
|
|
|
1922
|
|
|
Andrew Wilkins |
10 years ago
|
|
|
1921
|
|
|
Andrew Wilkins |
10 years ago
|
|
|
1920
|
|
|
Andrew Wilkins |
10 years ago
|
|
|
1919
|
|
|
Tim Penhey |
10 years ago
|
|
|
1918
|
|
|
Tim Penhey |
10 years ago
|
|
|
1917
|
|
|
Tim Penhey |
10 years ago
|
|
|
1916
|
|
|
Tim Penhey |
10 years ago
|
|
|
1915
|
|
|
Roger Peppe |
10 years ago
|
|
|
1914
|
|
|
Dimiter Naydenov |
10 years ago
|
|
|
1913
|
|
|
Roger Peppe |
10 years ago
|
|
|
1912
|
|
|
William Reade |
10 years ago
|
|
|
1911
|
|
[r=jameinel] provider: move to common, drop StartInstance
We originally planned the move from provider to provider/common to include moving StartInstance to environs, but in the end keeping it around seemed like more trouble than it was worth: it looks like a decent utility func, but is only really relevant to the provisioner -- and makes some pretty provisioner-specific and hard-to-justify assumptions about its broker. It's also used extensively in tests, but we have better ways of doing that nowadays.
So, the changes should all be categorizable as follows:
* move of everything in provider into provider/common * move of funky StartInstance logic into provisioner * deletion of provider.StartInstance * own file, renames for StartInstance helpers in juju/testing * replacement of provider.StartInstance, across the environy tests, with (usually) juju/testing helpers * drive-by removal and comment of provider-type constants in provider * removal of a live test that wasn't testing anything that needed to be tested live (although technically, I guess, it was a direct test of provider.StartInstance, along with a bunch of other stuff)
I'm not sure whether I should be testing the lxc broker a bit harder in the light of these changes, or whether the current state is adequate.
And there's *definitely* something up with the BootstrapState file -- the layering is a bit off (we've got cmd/jujud messing using LoadStateFromURL... and I can see why, but it still feels like the naming's a bit off). Not for today.
https://codereview.appspot.com/14156045/
|
William Reade |
10 years ago
|
|
|
1910
|
|
|
Roger Peppe |
10 years ago
|
|
|