internals: added revised charm store specification

https://code.launchpad.net/~niemeyer/juju/charm-store/+merge/89788

(do not edit description out of merge proposal)

[niemeyer, 2012-01-23 21:13:37]

Please take a look.

[fwereade, 2012-01-24 13:59:25]

LGTM

https://codereview.appspot.com/5570047/diff/1/source/internals/charm-store.rst
File source/internals/charm-store.rst (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/5570047/diff/1/source/internals/charm-store.rs...
source/internals/charm-store.rst:57: must *not* be processed a second time in
case it was previously seen.
How about ", and if the given namespace was already seen it must *not* be
processed a second time"?

https://codereview.appspot.com/5570047/diff/1/source/internals/charm-store.rs...
source/internals/charm-store.rst:172: the same convention.  Whenever deploying a
local charm, juju should bump
should this be "updating" rather than "deploying"?

https://codereview.appspot.com/5570047/diff/1/source/internals/charm-store.rs...
source/internals/charm-store.rst:269: revision received from the store, stop and
report it.
I don't think this is exactly right: see lp:917405. Probably this is not the
place to discuss this sort of implementation detail though.

https://codereview.appspot.com/5570047/diff/1/source/internals/charm-store.rs...
source/internals/charm-store.rst:294: of the charm collection, a member of the
``juju-composers`` team in
"charmers"?

https://codereview.appspot.com/5570047/diff/1/source/internals/charm-store.rs...
source/internals/charm-store.rst:295: Launchpad must run the ``promogate``
command (currently in charm-tools)
I don't think "promogate" is a word. Should that be "promote", or "promulgate",
or am I missing a reference?

[niemeyer, 2012-01-25 13:25:34]

https://codereview.appspot.com/5570047/diff/1/source/internals/charm-store.rst
File source/internals/charm-store.rst (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/5570047/diff/1/source/internals/charm-store.rs...
source/internals/charm-store.rst:57: must *not* be processed a second time in
case it was previously seen.
On 2012/01/24 13:59:25, fwereade wrote:
> How about ", and if the given namespace was already seen it must *not* be
> processed a second time"?

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/5570047/diff/1/source/internals/charm-store.rs...
source/internals/charm-store.rst:172: the same convention.  Whenever deploying a
local charm, juju should bump
On 2012/01/24 13:59:25, fwereade wrote:
> should this be "updating" rather than "deploying"?

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/5570047/diff/1/source/internals/charm-store.rs...
source/internals/charm-store.rst:269: revision received from the store, stop and
report it.
On 2012/01/24 13:59:25, fwereade wrote:
> I don't think this is exactly right: see lp:917405. Probably this is not the
> place to discuss this sort of implementation detail though.

The procedure here looks very straightforward, so I'm not sure what you're
referring to exactly. If the charm is running the current or a more recent
release, we shouldn't upgrade. If this isn't working well for whatever reason,
it's a bug elsewhere that we have to fix.

https://codereview.appspot.com/5570047/diff/1/source/internals/charm-store.rs...
source/internals/charm-store.rst:294: of the charm collection, a member of the
``juju-composers`` team in
On 2012/01/24 13:59:25, fwereade wrote:
> "charmers"?

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/5570047/diff/1/source/internals/charm-store.rs...
source/internals/charm-store.rst:295: Launchpad must run the ``promogate``
command (currently in charm-tools)
On 2012/01/24 13:59:25, fwereade wrote:
> I don't think "promogate" is a word. Should that be "promote", or
"promulgate",
> or am I missing a reference?

Oops, you're right. Thanks.