Comment 10 for bug 1750833

(its possible that we might argue that 2.4 doesn't need to talk to a 2.2
controller, though I'd definitely argue it. But *definitely* a 2.3 client
should be compatible with a 2.2 controller.)

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 6:40 AM, John Meinel <email address hidden> wrote:

> JIMM should probably be updated. However, if you bootstrap a Juju 2.2
> controller (JIMM compatible), we should make sure that Juju 2.3 is able to
> talk to it.
>
> The reason Ian couldn't reproduce is that it isn't a bug in 2.4 talking to
> 2.3, it is a bug in 2.3 talking to 2.2.
>
> John
> =:->
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 4:59 AM, Anastasia <anastasia.macmood@canonical.
> com> wrote:
>
>> I am all for fixing old juju code and will look at the PR but the
>> question remains - if it's a code path/api that we are hoping to make
>> obsolete, why does jimm use it? Should it not be updated to use later
>> API?
>>
>> --
>> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to juju.
>> Matching subscriptions: juju bugs
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1750833
>>
>> Title:
>> juju models reports "missing type, model details not valid"
>>
>> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju/+bug/1750833/+subscriptions
>>
>
>