Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

docs: update juju tutorial to use version 3.0 instead of 2.9 #172

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 8, 2024

Conversation

jat-canonical
Copy link
Contributor

This commit updates the docs for new users to start with juju 3.0 as that is the gold standard to use right with new features being developed as a priority for it.

@jat-canonical jat-canonical requested a review from a team as a code owner October 8, 2024 12:07
howto/install/deploy-juju.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
This commit updates the docs for new users to start with juju 3.0 as
that is the gold standard to use right with new features being developed
as a priority for it.
@keirthana
Copy link
Collaborator

There's also one more specific scenario of mentioning architecture for Juju 2.9.0 in that topic. Should we change that to align with Juju 3.0? See https://documentation.ubuntu.com/anbox-cloud/en/latest/howto/install/deploy-juju/#use-arm-instances

@jat-canonical
Copy link
Contributor Author

There's also one more specific scenario of mentioning architecture for Juju 2.9.0 in that topic. Should we change that to align with Juju 3.0? See https://documentation.ubuntu.com/anbox-cloud/en/latest/howto/install/deploy-juju/#use-arm-instances

I had intentionally left that in for people who might have a need to run 2.9 or 3.x as it was just extra information.

@keirthana
Copy link
Collaborator

There's also one more specific scenario of mentioning architecture for Juju 2.9.0 in that topic. Should we change that to align with Juju 3.0? See https://documentation.ubuntu.com/anbox-cloud/en/latest/howto/install/deploy-juju/#use-arm-instances

I had intentionally left that in for people who might have a need to run 2.9 or 3.x as it was just extra information.

Okay, if there will be some users who will want to stick with 2.9, it is worth keeping it. Thanks for clarifying

@keirthana keirthana merged commit fb94d5d into canonical:main Oct 8, 2024
2 of 3 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants