Excerpts from Kapil Thangavelu's message of Mon May 14 21:07:47 UTC 2012:
> Public bug reported:
>
>
> For local charms, refuse to deploy in the face of unknown metadata fields. For remote charms log warning.
>
> Additional Details
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju/2012-May/001587.html
Note that we should not *refuse*, as this will make any new versions of
charms non-deployable on old versions of juju even when that doesn't
matter. For instance a category field will cause juju to refuse these
charms, even though most of them will remain deployable.
This is also completely inappropriate for galapagos, as it will change
default behavior. If I am overruled on the reject vs. warn route, then
I suggest we delay this to honolulu.
Excerpts from Kapil Thangavelu's message of Mon May 14 21:07:47 UTC 2012: /lists. ubuntu. com/archives/ juju/2012- May/001587. html
> Public bug reported:
>
>
> For local charms, refuse to deploy in the face of unknown metadata fields. For remote charms log warning.
>
> Additional Details
> https:/
Note that we should not *refuse*, as this will make any new versions of
charms non-deployable on old versions of juju even when that doesn't
matter. For instance a category field will cause juju to refuse these
charms, even though most of them will remain deployable.
This is also completely inappropriate for galapagos, as it will change
default behavior. If I am overruled on the reject vs. warn route, then
I suggest we delay this to honolulu.