In some ways, this issue overlaps with bug 1089291 -- juju couldn't be used to terminate the machine. I think this bug needs to remain separate since users can always used their provider to terminate an instance and we expect Juju to notice.
In some ways, this issue overlaps with bug 1089291 -- juju couldn't be used to terminate the machine. I think this bug needs to remain separate since users can always used their provider to terminate an instance and we expect Juju to notice.