Comment 3 for bug 1394755

fwiw, that's fairly equivalent to the extant bug of ha supporting manual
provider, albeit phrased more generically.

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 7:47 AM, Björn Tillenius <email address hidden>
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 03:44:29PM -0000, Nate Finch wrote:
> > Wait, can you explain this better? I thought you were asking for
> > ensure-availability --to ... but you're saying that exists, so what
> > exactly are you asking for?
>
> What currently works is
>
> juju ensure-availability --to machine1.maas,machine2.maas
>
> That will add two new machines to the environment.
>
> What doesn't work is this work flow:
>
> juju add-machine machine1.maas
> <Added machine 1>
> juju add-machine machine2.maas
> <Added machine 2>
> juju ensure-availability --to 1,2
>
> We might even want the latter to be:
>
> juju ensure-availability --to lxc:1,lxc:2
>
> Unless there's a reason why the state server shouldn't be in an LXC?
>
>
> --
> Björn Tillenius | https://launchpad.net/~bjornt
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to juju-
> core.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1394755
>
> Title:
> juju ensure-availability should be able to target existing machines
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1394755/+subscriptions
>