2012/09/11/#juju-dev.txt

[04:08] <wrtp> davecheney: what are you working on currently, BTW?
[06:33] <fwereade> davecheney, heyhey
[06:53] <davecheney> sup
[08:06] <fwereade> mramm, what part of the world are you in atm? :)
[08:07] <davecheney> i don't think he's real
[08:07] <davecheney> his internets might have burped
[08:07] <davecheney> it's liek 4am for him
[08:19] <niemeyer> Good morning!
[08:21] <fwereade> niemeyer, heyhey
[08:21] <fwereade> niemeyer, goodness, where are you today?
[08:21] <niemeyer> fwereade: Nice summary on the upgrade stuff, cheers
[08:21] <fwereade> niemeyer, cool
[08:22] <niemeyer> fwereade: Still at home, just alert enough to feel motivated to do something :)
[08:22] <fwereade> niemeyer, well, awesome :0
[08:50] <niemeyer> Oh, hey, we've just moved within the company..
[08:50]  * niemeyer gets the boxes
[08:50] <fwereade> niemeyer, sorry, what happened?
[08:50] <niemeyer> fwereade: See email from Jane as of 4mins ago
[08:51] <fwereade> niemeyer, ah, ok
[08:53] <fwereade> niemeyer, well, yay robbie!
[08:53] <niemeyer> indeed :)
[09:06] <wrtp> fwereade, davecheney, niemeyer: morning!
[09:06] <niemeyer> wrtp: Morning!
[09:09] <fwereade> wrtp, heyhey
[09:11] <wrtp> fwereade: are you sure you were looking at the latest version of https://codereview.appspot.com/6495086/ when you made your most recent comments?
[09:11] <fwereade> wrtp, hmm, perhaps not... I just followed the links in your response
[09:11] <fwereade> wrtp, aw crap sorry, 2 new revs -- I'll double-cjeck
[09:11] <wrtp> fwereade: ah! that would take you to the previous version, i think (unchanged)
[09:12] <wrtp> fwereade: no wonder you didn't think it was fixed!
[09:13] <fwereade> wrtp, LGTM
[09:13] <wrtp> fwereade: phew!
[09:13] <fwereade> wrtp, sorry crack :/
[09:14] <wrtp> fwereade: that's fine; very easy to do.
[09:26] <fwereade> niemeyer, does anyone actually use upgrade-charm --dry-run? ISTM that it's kinda worthless, because the charm that would be upgraded to when you dry-run is not necessarily the charm that will be upgraded to when you do it for real
[09:27] <niemeyer> fwereade: I certainly wouldn't mind leaving the option for a second moment when we understand how it should really behave
[09:28] <fwereade> niemeyer, cool, I'll leave it out of the first attempt then :)
[09:48]  * niemeyer => breakfasting
[11:00] <niemeyer> Invites sent
[11:00] <davecheney> ty
[11:02] <niemeyer> wrtp: ping
[11:02] <wrtp> niemeyer: pong
[11:02] <niemeyer> wrtp: Meeting time
[11:02] <wrtp> niemeyer: just quitting apps on my mac so i can use G+
[11:54] <niemeyer> Any chance of a quick review on https://codereview.appspot.com/6501114/ so I can consider these bits done and move onto reviews?
[11:54] <fwereade> niemeyer, looking
[11:54] <niemeyer> fwereade: Cheers!
[12:10] <fwereade> niemeyer, LGTM, couple of trivial comments, ignore them if you like :)
[12:12] <niemeyer> fwereade: THanks!
[12:15] <wrtp> niemeyer: a little question: what's the use case for Watcher.Dying?
[12:18] <niemeyer> wrtp: See the machine watcher
[12:18] <niemeyer> wrtp: It's in use already
[12:19] <wrtp> niemeyer: wouldn't Dead be more appropriate?
[12:20] <wrtp> niemeyer: Dying kinda seems like it's an internal state transition of the watcher on its way to being dead.
[12:28] <fwereade> lunch, bbs
[12:31] <niemeyer> wrtp: Yeah, perhaps
[12:31] <niemeyer> wrtp: Do you see any edge cases where this might be a problem?
[12:32] <wrtp> niemeyer: no. i don't think there's any case when you want to know when a watcher is *about* to die
[12:32] <niemeyer> wrtp: Do you see any edge cases where using Dying might be a problem?
[12:33] <wrtp> niemeyer: it gives us leeway to change tomb to record more than one error in the future if we like
[12:34] <niemeyer> wrtp: Doesn't feel very compelling.. if we change tomb to behave differently, we might also change the watcher to behave differently
[12:34] <wrtp> niemeyer: and it just seems like something that doesn't need to be visible - the concept of dead is already there (Wait returns), but Dying is something different
[12:34] <wrtp> niemeyer: the tomb isn't part of the watcher interface
[12:35] <niemeyer> wrtp: Indeed.. but exposing Dead or Dying mean exactly the same as far as that perspective is concerned
[12:36] <wrtp> niemeyer: if we wait for Dead, we don't necessarily have to call Wait for it to die completely.
[12:36] <wrtp> niemeyer: if we wait for Dying, we do
[12:36] <niemeyer> wrtp: We don't call Wait, and we don't have to as far as I can see
[12:36] <wrtp> niemeyer: we call Stop
[12:36] <niemeyer> wrtp: Exactly
[12:36] <niemeyer> wrtp: Which we must
[12:37] <wrtp> niemeyer: even when it's told us it's dead?
[12:37] <niemeyer> wrtp: We must call Stop on state.Close, no matter what
[12:37] <niemeyer> wrtp: We're not going to be passing information between the watcher and the Close method
[12:40] <niemeyer> wrtp: Makes sense?
[12:41] <wrtp> niemeyer: i'm trying to think whether there might be a case where the message from, say, Watcher.Alive, might override the underlying error encountered by the presence.Watcher
[12:43] <wrtp> niemeyer: but perhaps that's simply an argument for including watcher.tomb.Err in the error message
[12:43] <niemeyer> wrtp: Yeah, possibly
[12:44] <niemeyer> wrtp: I was on the fence on that, but it does sound like a good idea from that perspective
[12:44] <wrtp> niemeyer: actually, Machine.WaitAgentAlive is a better example from that pov
[12:45] <wrtp> niemeyer: and if we're going to do that, then i think we *should* have Dead, not dying
[12:45] <wrtp> niemeyer: because we'll want to record any error encountered after it's been explicitly stopped.
[12:45] <niemeyer> wrtp: Sorry, I lost the leap
[12:46] <niemeyer> wrtp: The thing that caused the unit to die is there once Dying kicks
[12:47] <wrtp> niemeyer: yes, but the unit might have been explicitly stopped (no useful error message) but then actually encounter an error when shutting down, which we'd want to see
[12:47] <niemeyer> wrtp: Exactly, and that was the reason why it returned, and the reason why the cascading watcher was canceled
[12:47] <niemeyer> wrtp: It's as honest as it can be
[12:47] <wrtp> niemeyer: but if we're watching *Dying*, the error might not have been encountered yet
[12:48] <wrtp> niemeyer: because the watcher might only be just reacting to the dying message itself
[12:48] <niemeyer> wrtp: That's what I meant
[12:49] <niemeyer> wrtp: I'm fine to see a "returning because watcher was explicitly stopped" message if that's what actually happened
[12:49] <niemeyer> wrtp: The error from the watcher is an internal error, that will be visible from Close
[12:49] <wrtp> niemeyer: it may not
[12:50] <wrtp> niemeyer: because we might just have recorded the first error we encountered in a tomb before calling Close.
[12:50] <niemeyer> wrtp: Please read the Close method
[12:51] <niemeyer> wrtp: It returns the error from Stop from either watcher
[12:52] <niemeyer> wrtp: Besides that, to be honest if the watcher errored when terminating, and that error caused nothing to fail except the result of Stop, it's pretty boring error
[12:52] <niemeyer> wrtp: Feels a bit like we're hunting witches
[12:53] <wrtp> niemeyer: that may be true. but it's so easy to fix (use Dead rather than dying) that i'd rather have it work
[12:53] <niemeyer> wrtp: There's nothing to fix, so far
[12:53] <wrtp> niemeyer: it's this kind of code i was wondering about: http://paste.ubuntu.com/1198576/
[12:53] <niemeyer> wrtp: This is artificial
[12:53] <niemeyer> wrtp: There's no such thing as
[12:53] <niemeyer> 	defer watcher.Stop(t.presenceWatcher, &t.tomb)
[12:53] <wrtp> niemeyer: oh, i'm probably misremembering
[12:54] <niemeyer> <niemeyer> wrtp: We don't call Wait, and we don't have to as far as I can see
[12:54] <niemeyer> <wrtp> niemeyer: we call Stop
[12:54] <niemeyer> <niemeyer> wrtp: Exactly
[12:54] <niemeyer> <niemeyer> wrtp: Which we must
[12:54] <niemeyer> <wrtp> niemeyer: even when it's told us it's dead?
[12:54] <niemeyer> <niemeyer> wrtp: We must call Stop on state.Close, no matter what
[12:54] <niemeyer> <niemeyer> wrtp: We're not going to be passing information between the watcher and the Close method
[12:54] <niemeyer> wrtp: I'm happy to change as it makes no difference, but there's no factual reason that I can see
[12:56] <wrtp> niemeyer: slightly more realistic, perhaps: http://paste.ubuntu.com/1198581/
[12:57] <wrtp> niemeyer: but tbh nothing is gonna be deliberately closing the state underfoot apart from tests
[12:58] <wrtp> niemeyer: another reason to use Dead is it makes the error message more deterministic - w.Err() can change after Dying, but not after Dead.
[12:59] <niemeyer> wrtp: It can't in this case
[12:59] <niemeyer> wrtp: If there's an error with the watcher alive, it means we have a real error or we screwed up
[13:00] <niemeyer> wrtp: watcher.MustErr(st.watcher)
[13:00] <niemeyer> wrtp: That's there
[13:00] <niemeyer> wrtp: Which means that error won't change
[13:01] <niemeyer> wrtp: Ah, not in agent alive, nevermind
[13:01] <niemeyer> wrtp: Sure, anyway.. we can change
[13:02] <wrtp> niemeyer: i know it's a little thing, but worth doing IMHO
[13:02] <wrtp> niemeyer: thanks!
[13:10] <niemeyer> wrtp: np, can you do a CL with this?
[13:10] <wrtp> niemeyer: sure
[13:10] <niemeyer> wrtp: There's Dying both in mstate/watcher and presence
[13:13] <niemeyer> fwereade: Just sent a review
[13:13] <fwereade> niemeyer, cheers
[13:14] <niemeyer> fwereade: Great stuff, mostly trivials or questions for awereness
[13:14] <niemeyer> awareness
[13:14] <fwereade> niemeyer, cool
[13:14] <fwereade> niemeyer, (sometimes it's the questions for awareness that blow the whole thing out of the water, ofc ;))
[13:14] <niemeyer> fwereade: LOL
[13:14] <niemeyer> fwereade: I don't think that's the case in this instance :-)
[13:15] <fwereade> niemeyer, good-oh :)
[13:22] <fwereade> niemeyer, sent responses, I'll gtw on the non-controversial ones :)
[13:30] <niemeyer> fwereade: Re-proposed https://codereview.appspot.com/6501114 too
[13:30]  * fwereade looks
[13:33] <fwereade> niemeyer, ok, about changes in pending -- can a sync happen on a different goroutine?
[13:33] <niemeyer> fwereade: nope
[13:33] <niemeyer> fwereade: It's all done in a single goroutine
[13:33] <fwereade> niemeyer, ok great :)
[13:33] <niemeyer> fwereade: Yeah, it's complex enough without concurrency issues :)
[13:34] <fwereade> niemeyer, the trouble is that it makes sense now, so I can't say what would have made it easier to begin with :)
[13:35] <wrtp> fwereade: i think that once you've got used to that kind of pattern, it's fairly easy to spot and verify when you're reading the code.
[13:36] <fwereade> niemeyer, LGTM
[13:40] <niemeyer> fwereade: LGTM too (and that's not just an exchange, promise ;)
[13:40] <fwereade> niemeyer, haha
[13:41] <niemeyer> fwereade: I'll check the new comment when you submit
[13:47] <niemeyer> wrtp: I'm pushing a trivial branch with the suggested s/Dying/Dead/
[13:48] <wrtp> niemeyer: ok, thanks, sorry, i'm still debugging a change to the authorize ec2 branch
[13:48] <niemeyer> wrtp: np, that's kind of the point.. you're surely doing more interesting stuff and I'd rather unblock you
[13:48] <wrtp> niemeyer: that's appreciated, thanks
[13:48] <fwereade> niemeyer, btw, in case you missed it, the one you reviewed is still blocked on https://codereview.appspot.com/6489083/
[13:49] <niemeyer> wrtp: np
[13:49] <niemeyer> fwereade: I've half-missed it
[13:49] <niemeyer> fwereade: I was already reviewing when I noticed it had a pre-req
[13:51] <fwereade> niemeyer, np
[13:55] <niemeyer> wrtp: https://codereview.appspot.com/6489111
[13:56] <wrtp> niemeyer: reviewed
[13:57] <niemeyer> wrtp: cHeers
[14:03] <fwereade> niemeyer, re ModeUpgrading: it's perfectly legitimate to enter ModeUpgrading in an error state, and all the hook-error-related logic is now in Uniter itself -- I'm going to just drop mention of errors in the ModeUPgrading comment
[14:04] <niemeyer> fwereade: Sounds good, that was my confusion.. it's talking about errors despite it not really doing anything about them, or even needing anything given what you say
[14:09] <niemeyer> niemeyer> fwereade: Sounds good, that was my confusion.. it's talking about errors despite it not really doing anything about them, or even needing anything given what you say
[14:10] <niemeyer> fwereade: By the way, I had to look over Abide in the dictionary, thanks :-0
[14:10] <niemeyer> :-)
[14:11] <wrtp> niemeyer: a trivial ec2test fix: https://codereview.appspot.com/6501117/
[14:12] <niemeyer> fwereade: Seems very appropriate, btw
[14:13] <fwereade> niemeyer, fantastic, I just couldn't get over a feeling that I was being hipster-weirdy, despite not being able to come up with a better term :)
[14:13] <niemeyer> fwereade: Steady would be another choice
[14:14] <fwereade> niemeyer, I feel that once I've called it an operation it kinda needs to be a verb
[14:14] <niemeyer> fwereade: makes sense
[14:14] <niemeyer> wrtp: So what's up there?
[14:15] <wrtp> niemeyer: when i wrote ec2test i thought that (as according to the docs) you could not specify source group names without also specifying an owner id.
[14:15] <wrtp> niemeyer: that's not true, and it's nice if we can specify a name only.
[14:15] <niemeyer> wrtp: Okay, I had the same impression
[14:16] <niemeyer> wrtp: LGTM if it reflects reality
[14:16] <wrtp> niemeyer: it means we don't need a special-case hack for authorizing self in ec2.environ.ensureGroups.
[14:17] <wrtp> niemeyer: and it does seem to work live. perhaps i should include a server test to make sure within the ec2 package itself.
[14:52] <niemeyer> fwereade: Sent comment on https://codereview.appspot.com/6489083/
[14:52] <niemeyer> comments
[14:52] <fwereade> niemeyer, great, tyvm
[14:52] <niemeyer> wrtp: Sounds good
[14:52] <niemeyer> fwereade: np, one point I'd appreciate talking for understanding only, otherwise only boring/trivial stuff
[14:54] <fwereade> niemeyer, the SetCharm/Write/Deploy?
[14:56] <fwereade> niemeyer, my feeling is that because a Deploy is always preceded by a SetCharm, we only need to commit to the upgrade state once we're about to write to the actual deployment directory
[14:58] <fwereade> niemeyer, if we happen to SetCharm twice due to unhelpful process bounces, it's no big deal (in fact SetCharm will just return)
[14:58] <niemeyer> fwereade: Why isn't it simply Deploy(u.charm, url), or something similar?
[14:59] <fwereade> niemeyer, ha, good question
[14:59] <niemeyer> fwereade: I'm not finding the place where deploy() is called
[14:59] <fwereade> niemeyer, primarily because the sheer amount of code in one method was getting me down, and it seemed like a good idea at the time
[15:00]  * niemeyer looks at the raw diff
[15:00] <fwereade> niemeyer, ModeInstalling is the only place in that tree, I think
[15:02] <fwereade> niemeyer, sorry to be talking about upgrade above, that's the way I tend to think about it -- but, yes, that CL doesn't include any upgrading
[15:03] <niemeyer> fwereade: That's certainly fine
[15:03] <wrtp> niemeyer: ok, the functionality is now tested live (and a couple of live tests were fixed in the process)
[15:03] <wrtp> niemeyer: https://codereview.appspot.com/6501117/
[15:04] <niemeyer> fwereade: Why we use the urls that we SetCharmURLs again?
[15:04] <niemeyer> wrtp: Cheers
[15:05] <fwereade> niemeyer, sorry, cannot parse
[15:05] <niemeyer> fwereade: Trying to figure what we do with the info we give deployer.SetCHarm
[15:06] <fwereade> niemeyer, all we use it for *directly* is to avoid setting the same charm again; indirectly it's also returned from u.charm.ReadURL or whatever it's called
[15:08] <fwereade> niemeyer, which itself is used to compare against service-charm-change events to determine whether or not we care
[15:09] <fwereade> niemeyer, u.charm.ReadCharmURL
[15:09] <niemeyer> fwereade: Now that I went looking for them, it seemed slightly surprising to have ReadCharmURL/WriteCharmURL on GitDir..
[15:09] <niemeyer> fwereade: We should probably move those to functions later
[15:09] <fwereade> niemeyer, hmm, it *is* a charm.GitDir
[15:10] <fwereade> niemeyer, it seemed like a great idea to me at the time
[15:10] <fwereade> niemeyer, I presume you're seeing an ugliness I'm missing
[15:10] <niemeyer> fwereade: GitDir is not about charm at all, except for those two trivial functions, where one of them is a single line
[15:11] <fwereade> niemeyer, well, I'm perfectly happy to move them out, but it feels *slightly* more than coincidental that both GitDir clients find them useful
[15:11] <niemeyer> fwereade: Which is great, I'm not complaining about where we are
[15:12] <niemeyer> fwereade: These functions should definitely be within charm, and they can easily take a GitDir
[15:12] <fwereade> niemeyer, ok, that SGTM :)
[15:13] <niemeyer> fwereade: The logic is the same.. it's just that git has no read-charm command :)
[15:13] <fwereade> niemeyer, true :)
[15:13] <niemeyer> fwereade: Anyway, that was a derail, sorry
[15:13] <fwereade> niemeyer, np at all, nice easy trivial for later
[15:14] <wrtp> weird bzr behaviour: http://paste.ubuntu.com/1198834/
[15:14] <wrtp> i can't make it push the branch
[15:14] <wrtp> which causes lbox to fail when proposing
[15:15] <wrtp> it works if i fork the branch, delete the old one and rename to the old name
[15:15] <wrtp> niemeyer: any ideas?
[15:16] <niemeyer> fwereade: So, the separation definitely sounds sensible.. my memories were betraying me
[15:16] <niemeyer> fwereade: I thought SetCharm was doing something else
[15:16] <fwereade> niemeyer, np, mine do the same quite frequently ;p
[15:18] <niemeyer> fwereade: I'm wondering how we can name it in a way that feels like SetCharm and Deploy are complementary operations, that operate on different backing data and do not conflict
[15:18] <fwereade> niemeyer, Prepare/Run perhaps?
[15:18] <niemeyer> fwereade: Hmm.. Stage+Deploy?
[15:18] <fwereade> niemeyer, +1
[15:18] <niemeyer> fwereade: Super
[15:19] <niemeyer> wrtp: Looking
[15:19] <niemeyer> wrtp: % bzr commit -m 'change to try to force bzr to remember push loc'
[15:19] <niemeyer> wrtp: commit doesn't do that
[15:19] <niemeyer> wrtp: push --remember does that
[15:19] <fwereade> niemeyer, I think I'll propose a trivial rename branch from trunk for the ones we just discussed
[15:20] <wrtp> niemeyer: i tried push --remember - it didn't do anything. so i thought i'd try a source change too.
[15:20] <niemeyer> wrtp: Understood, but changing the history has no relation to metadata
[15:21] <wrtp> niemeyer: ok, thanks. so ignore that line and you'll see that there's a problem.
[15:21] <wrtp> niemeyer: (i think)
[15:22] <niemeyer> wrtp: See the .bzr/cobzr/<name>/.bzr/branch/branch.conf file
[15:22] <niemeyer> wrtp: and see where it is pointing to
[15:23] <niemeyer> fwereade: Cool
[15:23] <niemeyer> fwereade: So, regarding the WriteState
[15:23] <fwereade> niemeyer, yes
[15:23] <wrtp> niemeyer: push_location = file:///home/rog/src/go/src/launchpad.net/juju-core/.bzr/cobzr/051-authorize-internal-traffic/
[15:24] <wrtp> niemeyer: which looks very odd
[15:24] <niemeyer> fwereade: now that my mind is not totally wrong :)
[15:24] <fwereade> niemeyer, the underlying idea is to wait as long as possible before we persist the fact that we're upgrading to charm X
[15:24] <wrtp> niemeyer: i'll try and reproduce the problem from scratch with lbox -v
[15:25] <fwereade> niemeyer, the motivation for doing so is pretty weak, to be fair
[15:25] <niemeyer> fwereade: What is it?
[15:25] <niemeyer> wrtp: This isn't about lbox, or even cobzr
[15:25] <niemeyer> wrtp: This is plain bzr
[15:25] <wrtp> niemeyer: ok
[15:26] <fwereade> niemeyer, very specific situation: uniter falls down having Staged a new charm, and the user pushes a new charm version before it comes up again -- this means that it will see the newest charm and upgrade directly to that
[15:26] <niemeyer> wrtp: I don't know why it is misbehaving
[15:26] <niemeyer> wrtp: Try to delete the push line there
[15:26] <fwereade> niemeyer, the adverse consequences of just installing the first charm then the second one are pretty minimal to be fair
[15:26] <wrtp> niemeyer: when i fork a fresh branch, the push line is gone. but then it reappears.
[15:27] <niemeyer> fwereade: Doesn't it also mean it'll download the charm twice on the other scenario?
[15:27] <fwereade> niemeyer, downloads won;t be repeated; stages won;t be repeated
[15:27] <fwereade> niemeyer, it's easy to detect prior completion of each of those
[15:28] <niemeyer> fwereade: Cool, I'm happy with the current logic, thanks
[15:28] <fwereade> niemeyer, BundlesDir caches, and Stage checks for the existing charm url
[15:28] <fwereade> niemeyer, sweet
[15:29] <wrtp> niemeyer: yeah you're right, it's just bzr. http://paste.ubuntu.com/1198862/
[15:30] <niemeyer> wrtp: Very weird, either way
[15:31] <wrtp> niemeyer: indeed
[15:34] <niemeyer> Stepping out for lunch, biab
[15:37] <fwereade> wrtp, can I get a LGTM on the trivial I just discussed? https://codereview.appspot.com/6489112
[15:39] <wrtp> fwereade: LGTM
[15:39] <fwereade> wrtp, lovely, thanks
=== hazmat is now known as kapilt
[17:08] <wrtp> fwereade: was there a particular reason you didn't make the "run uniter" branch run the upgrader task?
[17:30]  * niemeyer waves
[17:39]  * wrtp waves back to niemeyer
[17:39] <wrtp> niemeyer: ec2test fix submitted, thanks.
[17:43] <niemeyer> wrtp: Thank you!
[17:44] <wrtp> Aram: yo!
[17:44] <Aram> hi.
[17:44] <niemeyer> Aram: Hi
[17:44] <Aram> sorry everybody.
[17:44] <Aram> had internet troubles :(.
[17:46] <Aram> niemeyer: have you seen my latest review for machine watcher?
[17:46] <Aram> my comment about TxnRevno
[17:46] <niemeyer> Aram: Yes, just answering it now
[17:47] <wrtp> Aram: we should all swap mobile numbers so we can have an alternative comms channel when something like that happens
[17:47] <Aram> wrtp: agreed.
[17:50] <wrtp> niemeyer: it's a good day for bzr oddities: http://paste.ubuntu.com/1199119/
[17:52] <niemeyer> Aram: Responded
[17:53] <niemeyer> wrtp: lp:launchpad.net?
[17:54] <wrtp> niemeyer: oh jeeze, i just couldn't see it! thanks. :-|
[18:00] <niemeyer> wrtp: I know how it goes
[18:01] <niemeyer> wrtp: Sometimes everything just feels broken and it's hard to see even the typos
[18:01] <wrtp> niemeyer: yeah
[18:01] <wrtp> niemeyer: i kinda new it was something obvious but i just couldn't see it!
[18:03] <niemeyer> fwereade: Is there anything I can do on https://codereview.appspot.com/6489083 to help out, or are you working on it still?
[18:05] <wrtp> niemeyer: can i put in a small request for a review of https://codereview.appspot.com/6501106/ ? i'm using it as a prereq for quite a lot of stuff.
[18:05] <niemeyer> wrtp: Will check it right now
[18:05] <wrtp> niemeyer: thanks
[18:35] <niemeyer> wrtp: done
[18:37] <wrtp> niemeyer: thanks a lot
[18:37] <niemeyer> wrtp: My pleasure, glad to see the progress there
[18:38] <wrtp> niemeyer: there's also https://codereview.appspot.com/6495086/ which you mostly reviewed about a week ago, but i changed it a bit since then.
[18:38] <wrtp> niemeyer: i think you'll like it :-)
[18:47] <niemeyer> wrtp: Cheers, I am going through the review list.. if you're not blocked on it, I'll get to it soon
[18:47] <wrtp> niemeyer: it is a prereq of another branch which i'm building on in turn, but i wouldn't say i'm blocked on it as such.
[18:56] <wrtp> niemeyer: i'm off now. see you tomorrow & have fun.
[18:58] <niemeyer> wrtp: have a good one
[21:23] <niemeyer_> OMG
[21:23] <niemeyer_> Not only the queue is clean, but we have 9 branches on the runway to land
=== kapilt is now known as hazmat