Code review comment for lp:~maas-maintainers/juju-core/maas-provider-skeleton

> Actually we're just doing the same thing as the EC2 provider here, only more explicitly — so maybe this was always an issue but it went unnoticed before. Here's how the EC2 code sets the equivalent "attrs" field:
>
> ecfg := &environConfig{cfg, v.(map[string]interface{})}
>
> (And "v" is produced in the same way that we do it.)
>
> Does this make sense? Or is there still a change that needs to be made here?

I think it's probably OK. Which is to say that environment configuration remains hairy and problematic and weird, because it's trying to be at *least* 3 different things, all of which have different sets of valid keys and values in various situations, but it's not very amenable to fixing at the moment.