Comment 8 for bug 1835823

It may be that we should not reuse last if it was an explicit machine?

On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:05 AM Tim Penhey <email address hidden>
wrote:

> Oh, I didn't realise that it was a bundle issue.
>
> This becomes more interesting because of placement directives where you
> specify an application.
>
> I do wonder if anyone actually relies on the behaviour of "use the last
> placement directive" for extra units.
>
> There are two primary places where this is actually useful: "lxd:new"
> and "appname". This means put new units in lxd containers on new
> machines, and colocate with another application.
>
> Changing this would be a breaking change in the current behaviour, not
> something we want to do in 2.x. Perhaps a more interesting thing would
> be some validator to run over the bundle where you could specify the
> strictness.
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to juju.
> Matching subscriptions: juju bugs
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1835823
>
> Title:
> Juju incorrectly placed a unit onto an existing machine
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju/+bug/1835823/+subscriptions
>