2012/11/23/#juju-dev.txt

[07:38] <rogpeppe> fwereade_: morning!
[08:52] <TheMue> Morning
[08:58] <rogpeppe> TheMue: hiyta
[08:58] <rogpeppe> hiya
[08:59] <TheMue> rogpeppe: I'm now returning a more detailed error containing the stderr output.
[08:59] <rogpeppe> TheMue: cool
[09:00] <TheMue> rogpeppe: Could you take a look again?
[09:00] <rogpeppe> TheMue: yeah, in a little bit
[09:00] <TheMue> rogpeppe: Thx.
=== TheMue_ is now known as TheMue
[10:33]  * rogpeppe loves it when he starts implementing something, then realises it's unexpectedly done already, as a natural consequence of earlier changes.
[10:33] <rogpeppe> davecheney, dimitern: hiya
[10:35] <davecheney> rehowdy
[10:38] <dimitern> rogpeppe: hey
[10:39] <TheMue> davecheney, dimitern: Morning.
[10:41] <TheMue> rogpeppe: Any chance to take a look?
[10:41] <rogpeppe> TheMue: sorry, i'm on a roll this morning - i don't want to derail for the moment, sorry
[10:42] <TheMue> rogpeppe: OK
[10:42] <rogpeppe> TheMue: i'll take a look after i've dealt with this branch
[10:42] <TheMue> rogpeppe: Would be great, thank you.
[10:52] <dimitern> TheMue: morning
[10:58] <rogpeppe> TheMue: you've got a review
[10:58] <TheMue> rogpeppe: Thx
[11:01] <dimitern> wallyworld: mgz and me are on mumble
[11:02] <TheMue> rogpeppe: Read it and the first two points are relative simple, ok. But the multi-line stderr is indeed a problem. I don't know if it should be part of the one-liner error string. For those who wnat to use it it's in the error as a field.
[11:02] <rogpeppe> TheMue: i know. there's no easy answer i'm afraid, but i'm not sure it's right as is.
[11:03] <rogpeppe> TheMue: (and i've seen lxc print multi-line error messages, so i know it definitely is an issue)
[11:04] <TheMue> rogpeppe: My problem also is, that the scope of that CL moved. The intention has been to add "first tests" to extend it later. ;)
[11:04] <rogpeppe> TheMue: i think the error handling is rightly part of the first tests
[12:03] <rogpeppe> fwereade_: ping
[12:06] <TheMue> rogpeppe: Aaargh, found an interesting behavior. The error message of lxc is written to stdout, not stderr. Will change the code according, os/exec supports it.
[12:06] <rogpeppe> TheMue: ha.
[12:07] <rogpeppe> TheMue:  it depends on the command maybe
[12:07] <rogpeppe> TheMue: the command i tried printed it to stderr
[12:07] <rogpeppe> TheMue: which command did you try?
[12:08] <TheMue> rogpeppe: Yes, maybe. Strange. But I should get it with the combined output.
[12:08] <TheMue> rogpeppe: I took lxc-create
[12:09] <rogpeppe> TheMue: the problem is that some commands might print an error *and* some expected standard output
[12:09] <rogpeppe> TheMue: lxc-start prints to stderr...
[12:09] <rogpeppe> TheMue: yuck
[12:10] <rogpeppe> TheMue: and lxc-create doesn't prefix its error lines either
[12:10] <TheMue> rogpeppe: I'll find my way. So far I already test most stuff before I even start a command and I'll add a root check too. ;)
[12:10] <TheMue> rogpeppe: Yes, that's what Aram said, it's inconsistent.
[12:10] <rogpeppe> TheMue: yeah, it's badly done
[12:11] <rogpeppe> TheMue: perhaps we should file a bug report
[12:11] <TheMue> rogpeppe: I'll make a note, yes.
[12:12] <rogpeppe> TheMue: i think there might be a pattern. i suspect that the lxc commands that are shell scripts print errors to stdout; the ones that aren't print errors to stderr
[12:13] <rogpeppe> TheMue: and their errors are totally inconsistent too. check out this one:
[12:13] <rogpeppe> 	echo "E: lxc-info - no such file" >&2
[12:15] <TheMue> rogpeppe: I just take all output for debugging, additionally to the returned ExecError of exec.Command
[12:15] <rogpeppe> TheMue: yeah, i don't think there's much else you can do actually
[12:16] <rogpeppe> TheMue: even some of the commands that are expected to produce stuff to stdout still print their errors to stdout.
[12:16] <rogpeppe> TheMue: what a friggin' mess. i don't think people know how to use shell scripts any more.
[12:17] <TheMue> rogpeppe: Hehe, yep.
[12:33] <rogpeppe> TheMue: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3589389&group_id=163076&atid=826303
[12:33] <TheMue> rogpeppe: Great
[12:34] <TheMue> rogpeppe: Thx, I would have done it later. ;)
[12:34] <rogpeppe> TheMue: it annoyed me enough that i wanted to do it there and then :-)
[12:34] <TheMue> rogpeppe: You're using it @home?
[12:35] <rogpeppe> TheMue: no, just the principle of it :-)
[12:35] <TheMue> rogpeppe: Hehe :D
[12:51] <TheMue> lunchtime, brb
[13:01] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: yo!
[13:02] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: i'm just passing the ca-cert to jujud, and i'm not quite sure of the best way to do it. i could use a flag or a file.
[13:02] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Heya
[13:02] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: i've just done it as a flag, but i'm not sure that's right.
[13:02] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: I'm not quite sure either.. it should be a file
[13:03] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: But we could pass as a flag, or hardcode the path
[13:03] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: currently my best thought is to hard-code the path (inside datadir)
[13:04] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: the flag is awkward because i'm not sure how the upstart config copes with multi-line strings
[13:05] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: ah, you mean pass the filename as a flag
[13:05] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: that could be better actually (and marginally easier to test, possibly)
[13:06] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: i think i'll go with that for the time being.
[13:07] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Sounds good
[13:12] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: this branch might finally be ok now, i'm hoping: https://codereview.appspot.com/6850087/
[13:13] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: and i'm hoping this one too: https://codereview.appspot.com/6855054/
[13:15] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Cool, I'll be there son
[13:15] <niemeyer> soon
[13:16] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: "son" works too, in a slightly patronising kinda way :-)
[13:47] <TheMue> rogpeppe: So, changes are in.
[13:47] <rogpeppe> TheMue: ok
[14:03] <rogpeppe> TheMue: reviewed
[14:03] <TheMue> rogpeppe: Great, thank you.
[14:16] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Closer, review sent
[14:16] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: quick crack test: is what i'm doing in TestPackage here ok, or crackful? the alternative is to add something in every SetUpSuite. https://codereview.appspot.com/6842088/diff/1/cmd/jujud/main_test.go
[14:16] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: thanks
[14:18] <rogpeppe> "What if the path is != "" and m[attr] is nil, shouldn't it stay nil?"
[14:18] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: i don't *think* so
[14:18] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: i deliberately chose that behaviour
[14:18] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: to follow the documentation
[14:20] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: in particular "The ...-path key is translated into "..." by loading the content from the respective file"
[14:21] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: i thought that meant that it's best to honour the path value if it's set
[14:22] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: note that providing a nil value still prevents it from "reading the standard paths"
[14:31] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: I'm not sure I see what you're trying to achieve
[14:32] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: I thought you had suggested yesterday that it shouldn't change if it's nil?
[14:32] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: i'm trying to come up with something that's not too surprising to someone that reads the docs on New()
[14:32] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: path always overrides value
[14:32] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: (currently)
[14:32] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: if you've explicitly specified a path, i think it would be surprising if it was ignored
[14:33] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Okay
[14:41] <niemeyer> I'll get a quick lunch
[14:43] <mgz> dimitern: can I bother you for a review of the swift fixup stuff?
[14:43]  * rogpeppe should probably get lunch too
[14:44] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: PTAL  https://codereview.appspot.com/6850087
[14:56] <rogpeppe> dimitern: i'm seeing an openstack test failure in trunk
[14:56] <rogpeppe> dimitern: http://paste.ubuntu.com/1379598/
[14:56]  * dimitern looks
[14:57] <dimitern> rogpeppe: hmm.. strange, why didn't it fail before when I run the test..
[14:57] <rogpeppe> dimitern: i know not
[14:58] <dimitern> rogpeppe: it's a trivial fix, I'm on it
[14:58] <rogpeppe> dimitern: it might be possible that you're relying on map-traversal order
[14:58] <rogpeppe> dimitern: (which is random)
[14:59] <dimitern> rogpeppe: maybe, anyway it was the last change
[14:59] <mgz> reminds me, I should actually get the juju-core suite passing here
[14:59] <mgz> it was unhappy last time I ran it
[15:02] <rogpeppe> mgz: when you have a test failure, pastebin it, and i'll let you know if it's a common one or not
[15:02] <rogpeppe> mgz: there are still a few sporadic test failures
[15:02] <rogpeppe> mgz: mostly to do with unreliability of external components, i think
[15:03] <dimitern> rogpeppe: strange, I cannot see the openstack provider code at all in trunk
[15:03] <rogpeppe> dimitern: that's odd
[15:04] <dimitern> rogpeppe: it should be there, right? it was yesterday
[15:04] <rogpeppe> dimitern: i see it
[15:04] <rogpeppe> dimitern: what do the last few entries of the revision log look like?
[15:05] <mgz> rogpeppe: well, problem #0 is what command to use to run the tests, and problem #1 is what I think I should use runs some, but then has:
[15:05] <mgz> go build launchpad.net/juju-core/cmd/juju: signal 9
[15:05] <mgz> FAIL    launchpad.net/juju-core/cmd/juju [build failed]
[15:05] <mgz> which seems non-passy
[15:05] <dimitern> rogpeppe: well, mostly yours - up to rev 734
[15:05] <rogpeppe> mgz: to run all the tests, go to the juju-core root dir, and type "go test ./..."
[15:06] <mgz> okay, so that is the convention. any ideas on the build fail?
[15:06] <dimitern> rogpeppe: and doing either bzr up or bzr pull does not get me anything new
[15:07] <rogpeppe> dimitern: trunk is up to revision 737
[15:07] <rogpeppe> dimitern: what does bzr info print?
[15:07] <mgz> dimitern: are you in the right branch, and what's the parent?... what rogpeppe said
[15:08]  * rogpeppe really goes for some lunch now
[15:08] <dimitern> mgz: I'm at the master branch (as cobzr names trunk)
[15:09] <dimitern> dimitern@kubrik:~/work/juju-core$ bzr up
[15:09] <dimitern> Tree is up to date at revision 734 of branch /home/dimitern/work/go/src/launchpad.net/juju-core/.bzr/cobzr/master
[15:09] <dimitern> dimitern@kubrik:~/work/juju-core$ bzr pull
[15:09] <dimitern> Using saved parent location: /home/dimitern/work/go/src/launchpad.net/juju-core/
[15:09] <dimitern> No revisions or tags to pull.
[15:09] <mgz> okay, so that's the problem
[15:09] <dimitern> mgz: what?
[15:10] <mgz> the parent branch is a local mirror, not lp:juju
[15:10] <mgz> *lp:juju-core
[15:10] <dimitern> mgz: I see, so how to change that?
[15:10] <mgz> use `bzr pull --remember lp:juju-core`
[15:10] <dimitern> mgz: nice, 10x
[15:19] <dimitern> mgz, rogpeppe: PTAL https://codereview.appspot.com/6843109
[15:25] <mgz> dimitern: I still get failures on those tests, but from a different issue
[15:26] <dimitern> mgz: can I see the paste?
[15:26] <dimitern> I don't get any errors, and I run the tests like 30 times in a row
[15:26] <mgz> it's likely because this box is set up differently to yours, and the tests are not well isolated from home
[15:27] <mgz> so, specifically there are no keys in ~/.ssh
[15:27] <dimitern> mgz: so it's just happening on yours
[15:27] <mgz> and your test stuff doesn't pass authorized-keys or similar
[15:28] <dimitern> no, it's not at all to do with ssh
[15:28] <mgz> the failures I'm seeing :)
[15:28] <dimitern> mgz: got you :) so not in the OS provider tests
[15:29] <mgz> yes, those tests, but different failures from the one you're fixing
[15:29] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: LGTM
[15:30] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: YAY!
[15:30] <dimitern> mgz: can I still see the paste?
[15:31] <mgz> when pastebin starts responding...
[15:31] <mgz> http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/1379685/
[15:31] <dimitern> :)
[15:32] <dimitern> mgz: I see, but that's from environs/config or something beneath
[15:33] <hazmat> rogpeppe, re the cert work, how does the client know the endpoint / cert fingerprint is valid for the endpoint?
[15:33] <rogpeppe> hazmat: the client has a CA public cert
[15:33] <mgz> full run with some failures from outside the openstack dir:
[15:33] <mgz> http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/1379695/
[15:33] <rogpeppe> hazmat: i'm not sure how that works from a web-browser perspective
[15:34] <mgz> guess I'll fix up some of these
[15:34] <dimitern> mgz: so put an ssh pubkey then :)
[15:34] <hazmat> rogpeppe, k, but where is the private cert for the CA?
[15:34] <mgz> dimitern: if the test is loading stuff from your homedir to work, it's not a very good test
[15:35] <mgz> tests should pass on a clean box, not just are carefully set up development environment
[15:36] <dimitern> mgz: i agree, sure, so which test is actually the root cause?
[15:36] <rogpeppe> mgz: until recently there have been a few tests like that. i've fixed them, hopefully in some of my latest branches
[15:36] <mgz> rogpeppe: any that still need reviewing/landing?
[15:36] <mgz> if so, point me at 'em
[15:36] <rogpeppe> mgz: yeah, quite a few
[15:36] <dimitern> rogpeppe: take a look please: https://codereview.appspot.com/6843109 - since it's trivial one LGTM should suffice, right?
[15:36] <rogpeppe> mgz: look at the juju-core active reviews
[15:37] <mgz> dimitern: it's a general bad assumption
[15:37] <mgz> rogpeppe: will do
[15:37] <rogpeppe> dimitern: will do, in a little while
[15:37] <dimitern> rogpeppe: thanks
[15:44] <hazmat> rogpeppe, for the web we'll need to have a webserver with the same cert serve up the html so the browser user can ack it, the websocket is considered a subresource, and won't get loaded if the cert isn't already known to the browser.
[15:46] <mgz> rogpeppe: are there any fixes for these tests that aren't nacked by niemeyer?
[15:47] <niemeyer> brb
[15:49] <mgz> for what it's worth, bzr has a few different test classes, any test that's going to touch disk is given an isolated home directory to work in
[15:53] <mgz> and lp:~rogpeppe/juju-core/141-test-HOME-independence fixes failures.
[15:59] <rogpeppe> mgz: we've moved away from that branch. i've been fixing on a see-it-and-fix-it basis.
[16:00] <rogpeppe> mgz: tbh i'm juggling too many subtly interrelated branches at the moment - i can't remember what goes where!
[16:01] <rogpeppe> it'd be good to have a go-ahead for this trivial: https://codereview.appspot.com/6847091/
[16:01] <rogpeppe> mgz: ^
[16:02] <rogpeppe> mgz: and this followup: https://codereview.appspot.com/6782103
[16:05] <rogpeppe> dimitern: LGTRM
[16:05] <rogpeppe> LGTM
[16:05] <rogpeppe> dimitern: one LGTM is fine for that
[16:06] <dimitern> rogpeppe: cool, 10x
[16:06] <rogpeppe> dimitern: if you submit now, i've got two branches that i need to submit in quick succession
[16:07] <rogpeppe> pwd
[16:07] <dimitern> rogpeppe: just submitted
[16:08] <rogpeppe> dimitern: thanks
[16:08] <rogpeppe> TheMue, fwereade_, dimitern: please don't submit anything for a minute or so
[16:09] <TheMue>  rogpeppe Ey, ey
[16:09] <dimitern> how does submitting interfere, i'm curious when you're done
[16:09]  * TheMue leaves now, has a whisky tasting in 50 minutes
[16:11] <rogpeppe> TheMue: enjoy!
[16:11] <TheMue> I wish you all a wonderful weekend and thanks for the helpful feedback.
[16:11] <TheMue> rogpeppe: I'll do. Slàinte!
[16:11] <rogpeppe> TheMue: np. thanks for going along!
[16:11] <rogpeppe> dimitern: done now.
[16:12] <rogpeppe> dimitern: submitting pulls down a copy of the branch you're submitting against, merges against that, then pushes
[16:12] <rogpeppe> dimitern: so if someone submits in the meantime, you may get a "branches diverged" error
[16:13] <dimitern> rogpeppe: I see, good to know
[16:13] <rogpeppe> dimitern: and in this case, one of the branches was breaking trunk, so i didn't want to get into that state
[16:18] <rogpeppe> mgz: i'm just putting together a branch that fixes the various HOME-dependencies
[16:19] <mgz> rogpeppe: ace, will look at those other movey branches too
[16:42] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: oh dear, it look like Settings.Write doesn't work properly in the face of nil keys. i only discovered when running the tests having done "chmod 0 ~/.ssh ~/.juju"
[16:43] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Hmm
[16:43] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: am currently working on a fix
[16:43] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: What's the deal there?
[16:43] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: the nil keys are disappearing
[16:43] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: sorry, the nil values
[16:45] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: it looks ok at a glance, but that's not what i'm seeing
[16:47] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Hmm
[16:48] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: yeah, this test fails: http://paste.ubuntu.com/1379890/
[16:50] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: I think that's what we represent as lack of value
[16:50] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: maybe i should back out my submits
[16:51] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: again :-(
[16:52] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: What about using your prior idea of changing the behavior of ""
[16:52] <rogpeppe> aargh
[16:52] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Would that work?
[16:52] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: argh²
[16:52] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: i believe it would :-)
[16:53] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: I still don't think it's great, but we can't spend weeks on how to load a value from disk
[16:53] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: i know
[16:53] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: we could change the behaviour of "" throughout - it's really just an implementation convenience
[16:54] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: No, let's please not cascade this further
[16:54] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Otherwise Monday we'll be talking about this again
[16:54] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: yup
[16:54] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: i thought i might get tls actually working today too
[16:54] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: (i've got a branch that almost does)
[16:54] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Let's keep the current branch mostly unchanged, and try to just adapt the logic so it works with ""
[16:55] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: ok
[16:55] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: could you draft the doc comment for New while i fix the code?
[16:57] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: I'm on it
[16:58] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: thanks
[17:26] <mgz> hm, is lgtm actually used as a magic string for anything?
[17:26] <rogpeppe> mgz: i don't believe we do that (the go core does, i think)
[17:26] <rogpeppe> pwd
[17:26] <mgz> ~
[17:38] <mgz> rogpeppe: reviewed those movey branches
[17:38] <rogpeppe> mgz: thank you
[17:40] <mgz> the second one I trust you on the design of, I'd probably have made a cert object that had create and parse constructors and accessors for cert/private key, and made the code create one how they wanted before passing to bootstrap
[17:40] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: I think the easiest for the moment is to just remove the second to last paragraph
[17:41] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: It turns out that everything else is still true
[17:41] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: ok. will have a look when i've got these pesky tests passing again
[17:41] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: We could try to explain, but it feels like it'll make it harder to read and understand than otherwise
[17:42] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: that sounds reasonable
[18:05] <niemeyer> fwereade_: I know you're on holiday, but you demonstrated interest in talking yesterday. In case you need me, I'm around, but no rush.. we can talk on Monday too
[18:09] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: https://codereview.appspot.com/6854088
[18:09] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Looking
[18:09] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Uh, what happened to the rest?
[18:10] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: the rest?
[18:10] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: I mean, the branch that was already in review?
[18:10] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: it got submitted
[18:10] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: before i realised the problem
[18:10] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Oh?
[18:10] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Ouch
[18:10] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Okay, hopefully that'll fix it.. looking
[18:10] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: i was trying to fix another problem when i found out
[18:11] <rogpeppe> mgz: the above branch should fix your $HOME-dependency problems too
[18:11] <rogpeppe> mgz: i've run all tests successfully with: mkdir /tmp/x; chmod 0 /tmp/x; HOME=/tmp/x go test ./...
[18:12] <rogpeppe> mgz: apart from the state tests, which need a writable .ssh, because ssh *always* writes to your home directory, regardless of the setting of $HOME
[18:13] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: That change in file bootstrap.go feels bogus
[18:13] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: I've been looking at the change that puts it back where it should be on every other branch
[18:13] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: i think it might be because i'm using a different version of gofmt
[18:14] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: i.e. the one in tip
[18:14] <mgz> rogpeppe: looking
[18:14] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Maybe, but we need to stabilize the situation
[18:14] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: I've seen *several* branches fixing this
[18:14] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: We shouldn't change it back
[18:14] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Or we'll continue to see it
[18:14] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: yeah. i'll put 1.0.3's version in my bin
[18:14] <rogpeppe> pwd
[18:15] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: In state_test.go, it's curious that a few lines were not there before
[18:15] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: THey weren't nil, and now they're being set to ""
[18:15] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: That means the behavior of the test is actually changing rather than just being moved on the nil/"" situation
[18:15] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Was the test borked?
[18:16] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: the test was relying on the fact that ca-private-key did not exist in $home/.juju, yeah
[18:17] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: i smoked out these things by running the tests with an inaccessible home
[18:24] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Cool
[18:25] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: So LGTM
[18:25] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: thanks
[18:25] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: The gofmt issue is the only detail worth changing before submit
[18:25] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: i've done it
[18:25] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: I wonder if that's an accident
[18:26] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: I mean, the gofmt behavior change
[18:26] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: it doesn't look right
[18:26] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: i agree
[18:27] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: We should report it.. hopefully it can be fixed before the next major
[18:27] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: submitted.
[18:27] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Thanks a lot
[18:27] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: davecheney says there are other gofmt changes coming
[18:27] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: in tip
[18:27] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Hmm
[18:27] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: i think we should standardise on 1.0.3
[18:27] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Not sure how that affects things.. it feels like an unintended bug
[18:28] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: (that might be caused by these other changes)
[18:28] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: until 1.1 is released
[18:28] <mgz> rogpeppe: lgtm
[18:28] <rogpeppe> mgz: ta. it's in. i'd like to know if that fixes your problems.
[18:29] <mgz> ah, I should have mentioned, most of the failures are gone
[18:29] <mgz> there's still the odd build thing, and I need to pull to get dimitern's fix
[18:30] <niemeyer> http://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=4428
[18:30] <niemeyer> mgz: That's related to your comment on the branch too ^
[18:31] <mgz> niemeyer: right, I saw the discussion here after hitting submit
[18:32] <mgz> right, that's it for me
[18:40] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: here's the branch that implements the --ca-cert-file flag: https://codereview.appspot.com/6842088
[18:41] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: i've gotta go now, but i'm really hoping you might be able to go through my active reviews before monday :-) it's feely pretty unwieldy atm, although getting that config branch in is a big weight off.
[18:44] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: thanks a lot for bearing with me with these large branches. i'm hoping that there won't be much more in the way of config changes for a while now...
[18:44] <rogpeppe> night all
[18:54] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Thanks a lot, and have a nice night and weekend
[19:16] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: and you
[19:17] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: hope your house decoration is going/has gone well
[19:19] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: It's pretty much done now.. today was the last day of furniture installation, and the cable/internet guys were around too to upgrade the network
[19:20] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Slightly less crappy bandwidth now, hopefully video will suck less on our meetings now
[19:20] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: I can't handle that anymore, so I'm glad it's over