Closed addyess closed 1 year ago
This PR is careful to avoid breaking anyone today which is great. What I worry about is that:
latest/stable
on everything, and that changes hereFor juju 2.9 -> 3.1, breaking that contract (at least temporarily) I think makes sense. Probably most apps using this will be surprised by a Juju 2.9 -> 3.1 change, so delaying that until 3.x is better supported by charms might be worth the disrupted contract so I'm ok with that I think. But I'm less sure about the others. In most cases, I think if someone is using actions-operator
they're intentionally keeping on latest/stable
, and if they didn't want to be on latest/stable
they've pinned their applications accordingly.
Well, if the contract for actions-operator@main
to be latest/stable
-- perhaps this PR is better suited for a v1 branch of actions-operator
yeah that's a fair point. Or really a v2 branch (there is a v1 atm). We could turn this into something more opinionated about versions, although I think I personally prefer tracking latest/stable on things when possible and let the user add their opinions.
I'm not sure we're winning each other over :) Does anyone else know about/care about this repo that might chime in?
I'm not sure we're winning each other over :) Does anyone else know about/care about this repo that might chime in?
It's likely lots of folks care, but maybe just aren't chiming in.
Let's pin juju to 2.9/stable and i'll nix the other bits.
sorry I missed the last update. Agreed
Pin to juju-channel 2.9/stable as the default until more charms ready their test harnesses to use 3.x
Any adjustments to these snap versions should be made by the actions operator caller