| [07:41] <wrtp> fwereade: mornin' | |
| [08:04] <TheMue> Good morning, Go-ers. | |
| [08:25] <wrtp> TheMue: hey! | |
| [08:26] <wrtp> TheMue: i seem to have problems branching the new juju-core project... is there anything i should know? | |
| [08:26] <TheMue> wrtp: Ah, here he is. HAd a nice time with the Queen? | |
| [08:26] <wrtp> TheMue: she was lovely thanks. she sends fond regards. | |
| [08:27] <TheMue> wrtp: Oh, thank you. Send her my best wishes when you're next time in for a cup of tea. *lol* | |
| [08:27] <wrtp> % bzr branch lp:juju-core/trunk juju-core | |
| [08:27] <wrtp> bzr: ERROR: Permission denied: "Cannot create 'trunk'. Only Bazaar branches are allowed." | |
| [08:27] <wrtp> wtf? | |
| [08:28] <TheMue> wrtp: Did not tried it yet, just started and updated the VM. | |
| [08:28] <TheMue> wrtp: Will try now and see what I get. | |
| [08:28] <wrtp> TheMue: cool, thanks | |
| [08:33] <TheMue> wrtp: Simple solution, just remove /trunk. | |
| [08:33] <wrtp> TheMue: remove /trunk from where? | |
| [08:33] <TheMue> wrtp: It's bzr branch lp:juju-core <<your dir name>> | |
| [08:33] <wrtp> TheMue: ah. that's odd, because every other project uses /trunk... | |
| [08:34] <TheMue> wrtp: ;) | |
| [08:35] <TheMue> wrtp: Even with bzr? Trunk as a dir I know from svn. But e.g. not in Mercurial based projects. | |
| [08:35] <wrtp> TheMue: yeah. for example goamz and gozk | |
| [08:35] <wrtp> TheMue: ha ha. it doesn't work with cobzr! | |
| [08:37] <TheMue> wrtp: I'm using plain bzr and switch/rename directories | |
| [08:38] <wrtp> TheMue: yeah. tbh, i think it's perhaps an oversight that niemeyer's not using lp:juju-core/trunk | |
| [08:38] <wrtp> TheMue: hmm, he *is* using /trunk: https://code.launchpad.net/~gophers/juju-core/trunk | |
| [08:41] <wrtp> TheMue: hmm, this worked ok: bzr branch https://code.launchpad.net/~gophers/juju-core/trunk juju-core | |
| [08:41] <wrtp> TheMue: which is all i needed | |
| [08:42] <TheMue> wrtp: I think the command above leads to the same result. | |
| [08:42] <TheMue> wrtp: See "Get this branch:" on the web site. | |
| [08:42] <wrtp> TheMue: evidently it doesn't, because bzr branch lp:juju-core/trunk failed... | |
| [08:43] <TheMue> wrtp: There's written "bzr branch lp:juju-core" | |
| [08:43] <TheMue> wrtp: Nothing about a "/trunk". | |
| [08:44] <wrtp> TheMue: yeah, but that *should* be the same as bzr branch lp:juju-core/trunk | |
| [08:44] <wrtp> TheMue: which is what i've been using for all the other projects. | |
| [08:44] <wrtp> TheMue: (including juju itself) | |
| [08:44] <wrtp> (the python version) | |
| [08:45] <TheMue> wrtp: Maybe, here I'm not deep enough in the bazaar conventions. | |
| [08:46] <wrtp> TheMue: neither me :-) | |
| [08:46] <TheMue> wrtp: I even don't see a reason for appending trunk. | |
| [08:46] <wrtp> TheMue: it's just what gustavo told me to do ages ago... | |
| [08:46] <TheMue> wrtp: What would it be good for? | |
| [08:46] <wrtp> TheMue: all launchpad branches are of the form lp:project/branch | |
| [08:51] <TheMue> wrtp: OK, so the URI maybe may contain a branch but when no branch is defined the trunk is taken. | |
| [08:51] <wrtp> TheMue: yup | |
| [10:21] <TheMue> Oh, family forces me to a second breakfast on the veranda. Brb. | |
| [10:57] <wrtp> TheMue: i feel your pain :-) | |
| [11:16] <TheMue> wrtp: The pain starts when returning back to the computer. | |
| [11:24] <Aram> morning. | |
| [11:28] <TheMue> Hi Aram | |
| [11:28] <hazmat> wrtp, bzr branch lp:juju-core | |
| [11:29] <wrtp> hazmat: why doesn't bzr branch lp:juju-core/trunk work like it does for other projects? | |
| [11:29] <wrtp> hazmat: seems a bit odd | |
| [11:29] <wrtp> Aram: hiya | |
| [11:32] <hazmat> wrtp, because there is no 'trunk' series defined | |
| [11:32] <hazmat> wrtp, it looks like gustavo named it 'juju' | |
| [11:33] <hazmat> which is odd | |
| [11:33] <hazmat> so instead of 'trunk' you have bzr branch lp:juju-core/juju | |
| [11:34] <wrtp> hazmat: i agree that's odd. it's also odd, given that, that this link works: https://code.launchpad.net/~gophers/juju-core/trunk | |
| [11:34] <hazmat> wrtp, right.. the actual branch is trunk (off the gophers group).. but the lp alias derives off the series | |
| [11:35] <hazmat> changing the name of the series would fix that | |
| [11:35] <hazmat> at https://launchpad.net/juju-core/juju | |
| [11:35] <hazmat> i'll wait to niemeyer is around though | |
| [11:35] <wrtp> hazmat: yeah, he usually has a good reason for this kind of thing | |
| [11:37] <wrtp> hazmat: 'juju-core juju series [...] The "trunk" series represents [...] ' | |
| [11:42] <hazmat> wrtp, i rather doubt there's a reason to it | |
| [11:42] <hazmat> well perhaps to hold the series as separate project containers | |
| [11:58] <hazmat> wrtp, the reason niemeyer rejected the proposals is so people could create new ones against the juju-core project | |
| [11:58] <wrtp> hazmat: i have no problem with that | |
| [11:58] <hazmat> https://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/manage/linux/ | |
| [11:59] <hazmat> wrtp, just noticed you had put an existing back into 'wip' | |
| [11:59] <wrtp> hazmat: oh, that was unintentional - i tried to do lbox propose -for lp:juju-core, but it found the old proposal | |
| [12:00] <hazmat> wrtp, no worries.. try the bzr merge --remember lp:juju-core thing first | |
| [12:00] <wrtp> hazmat: the WIP was so that i didn't make an actual proposal, but had the side effect, i see, of unrejecting it | |
| [12:00] <wrtp> hazmat: i'm branching from trunk then merging back into that, then proposing that | |
| [12:00] <hazmat> wrtp, lbox inspects the bzr info command to determine the submit/push branch | |
| [12:01] <wrtp> hazmat: which i hope should work | |
| [12:05] <wrtp> hazmat: new proposal https://codereview.appspot.com/6300060 (which is quite a nice number) | |
| [12:31] <TheMue> wrtp: First impression is good, but it's a deeper change and I've got to see where other parts of the still to port state code has to adopt those changes. | |
| [12:34] <wrtp> TheMue: submitted, i'm afraid. consensus has it that there shouldn't be a particular problem with it... | |
| [12:35] <TheMue> wrtp: Thought it's a proposal. | |
| [12:35] <wrtp> TheMue: it was proposed a week ago, and LGTM'd by gustavo | |
| [12:36] <wrtp> TheMue: see https://codereview.appspot.com/6247066/ | |
| [12:36] <TheMue> wrtp: OK, only wondered because you wrote "new proposal". | |
| [12:36] <wrtp> TheMue: it's only new because it had to be created anew for juju-core | |
| [12:36] <TheMue> wrtp: Ah, understand. | |
| [12:38] <Aram> today is a national holiday here, I think I'll be around mostly, though. | |
| [12:52] <wrtp> Aram: seems fairly quiet today... | |
| [12:53] <TheMue> In Germany some of the federal states have public holiday too, we don't. So they drive into our towns to go shopping. ;) | |
| [12:54] <Aram> yeah, when it's a public holiday it's terrible, everything is closed. | |
| [12:54] <Aram> we have one single generic shop opened in a 2M people city. | |
| [12:54] <Aram> and even that shop is not non stop. | |
| [12:55] <Aram> back in Romania I had 3 non-stop shops on my street, heh. | |
| [13:00] <Aram> btw, did you guys see the transit of venus yesterday? | |
| [13:03] <TheMue> Aram: No, too early, will look at it next time. *lol* | |
| [13:04] <Aram> lol. | |
| [13:09] <wrtp> hazmat: does remove-unit ever terminate a machine? | |
| [13:09] <hazmat> wrtp, no | |
| [13:09] <hazmat> wrtp, the machine is still allocated, and can be used for new units | |
| [13:10] <hazmat> wrtp, its a big bogus atm though | |
| [13:10] <hazmat> because we don't isolate the units from the root fs | |
| [13:10] <wrtp> hazmat: i was thinking about dave cheney's problem with the provisioning agent. | |
| [13:10] <hazmat> so they'll have pre-existing state on them | |
| [13:10] <wrtp> hazmat: i see | |
| [13:10] <hazmat> terminate-machine will kill an unused machine | |
| [13:10] * hazmat checks for dave's email | |
| [13:11] <wrtp> hazmat: i'm wondering if it might be best if terminate-machine merely marks the machine as "terminated" and only the provisioning agent actually removes it from the state, once the machine has been really terminated. | |
| [13:11] <wrtp> hazmat: then there's no need to be able to list all machines in the environment, i *think*. | |
| [13:12] <hazmat> wrtp, it removes the machine state | |
| [13:12] <wrtp> hazmat: currently, yeah. | |
| [13:12] <hazmat> wrtp, the provisioning agent marks machine its creates in some fashion | |
| [13:12] <hazmat> so it can identify them | |
| [13:12] <hazmat> in ec2 it uses security groups | |
| [13:12] <wrtp> hazmat: that's true. | |
| [13:12] <hazmat> and then it deltas between state and provider instances | |
| [13:12] <hazmat> and removes those with the mark but no state | |
| [13:12] <wrtp> hazmat: i was wondering if it's actually necessary to be able to do that | |
| [13:12] * hazmat doesn't understand the question | |
| [13:13] <hazmat> wrtp, as opposed to synchronous rpc to the provisioning agent? | |
| [13:13] <hazmat> you can also mark the state as deleted and have the provisioning agent subscribe not just to children but also to contents.. | |
| [13:13] <wrtp> hazmat: i don't think the provisioning agent subscribes to children | |
| [13:14] <hazmat> the firewall component of the provisioning agent has some nested watches for exposed port management | |
| [13:14] <wrtp> hazmat: i think it subscribes to topology | |
| [13:14] <hazmat> wrtp, oh.. yeah.. right | |
| [13:14] <hazmat> same principle though, you could mark the deletion in the topology | |
| [13:14] <hazmat> wrtp, what's your alternative that your thinking about? | |
| [13:14] <wrtp> hazmat: yeah, that's what i'm suggesting | |
| [13:14] <hazmat> wrtp, yes you should go down that road | |
| [13:15] <hazmat> wrtp, see the stop protocol proposal.. as a background | |
| [13:15] <wrtp> hazmat: rather than simply deleting the machine from the topology and letting the provisioning agent do the delta. | |
| [13:15] <wrtp> hazmat: link? | |
| [13:16] <hazmat> http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~hazmat/juju/unit-stop/view/head:/source/drafts/stopping-units.rst | |
| [13:16] <hazmat> wrtp, it would be nice if go juju had some proposals... | |
| [13:17] <hazmat> ie. document architecture choices | |
| [13:17] <hazmat> this is one thing we were really good at during the beginning of juju dev | |
| [13:17] <wrtp> hazmat: i guess atm our proposals are all "do what py juju does" :-) | |
| [13:17] <hazmat> that we fell off at, it would be good to resurrect | |
| [13:17] <hazmat> wrtp, except when its not | |
| [13:17] <wrtp> hazmat: true. | |
| [13:18] <hazmat> pretty much everything different is undocumented | |
| [13:18] <hazmat> the zk interaction etc. | |
| [13:19] <wrtp> hazmat: that's true. i'd definitely like to see more docs on that. although in the code would be fine for me too. | |
| [13:20] <hazmat> wrtp, in the code sort of defeats the purpose of a proposal's intent, unless its extractable prose | |
| [13:20] <hazmat> api docs are not really architecture documentation | |
| [13:20] <wrtp> hazmat: isn't a "proposal" about something that might be, rather than something that is? | |
| [13:21] <wrtp> hazmat: BTW i like the intent of the stop proposal, but i'm of two minds. | |
| [13:21] <hazmat> wrtp, its prose documentation about the impl | |
| [13:21] <hazmat> and architecture | |
| [13:21] <hazmat> we did typically do it in advance, but the value is the historical as well | |
| [13:21] <wrtp> hazmat: as an operator i'd like to be able to do terminate-machine and have it just stop, not potentially hang waiting for buggy stop hooks to complete. | |
| [13:22] <hazmat> because niemeyer wanted to agree on architecture before impl for most bits as a coordination/go-slow point | |
| [13:22] <hazmat> wrtp, that's covered in the proposal | |
| [13:22] <hazmat> wrtp, the supervision tree is still in effect | |
| [13:22] <hazmat> it just gives a chance/notification and wait period for the buggy stop hook | |
| [13:23] <hazmat> as opposed to ruthless termination which precludes any form of child cleanup/activity | |
| [13:23] <wrtp> oh yeah, i see | |
| [13:23] * wrtp hates timeouts in general though :-) | |
| [13:23] <wrtp> although i know they're unavoidable in general | |
| [13:23] <hazmat> wrtp, your alternative suggestion is eagerly awaited ;-) | |
| [13:24] <hazmat> coffee break, bbiam | |
| [13:24] <wrtp> hazmat: just kill the machine. any system should be able to cope with that as a matter of course anyway... | |
| [13:26] <hazmat> wrtp, right.. that's what we do now | |
| [13:26] <hazmat> parent's kill children | |
| [13:26] <wrtp> hazmat: what's the parent of a machine node? | |
| [13:26] <hazmat> wrtp, the provisioning agent | |
| [13:26] <hazmat> the environment from a state perspective | |
| [13:26] <hazmat> but the point is that's problematic for a coordination system to not coordinate :-) | |
| [13:28] <hazmat> for example the switch to contained unit states in the service is something that should get documented as part of the zk tree layout docs we have. | |
| [13:28] <wrtp> hazmat: agreed. | |
| [13:29] <hazmat> i'd suggest bringing in juju/docs into the goport tree or into juju-core as a separate series | |
| [13:29] <hazmat> and updating it there | |
| [13:30] <wrtp> hazmat: good idea. | |
| [13:31] <wrtp> hazmat: i think that and the (as yet unused?) presence node stuff are the only major deviations so far | |
| [13:31] <wrtp> hazmat: but TheMue might know of more | |
| [13:32] <hazmat> wrtp, well pinger nodes for ephemeral nodes as well | |
| [13:32] <hazmat> wrtp, and the zk session expiration tomb behavior | |
| [13:32] <wrtp> hazmat: that's what i meant by "presence node stuff" | |
| [13:33] <wrtp> hazmat: is that a change visible in zk? | |
| [13:33] <wrtp> (the session expiration behaviour, that is) | |
| [13:33] <hazmat> wrtp, its an architecture detail thats worth documenting | |
| [13:33] <hazmat> considering it was given as one of the main reasons to port to go.. | |
| [13:33] <hazmat> that might be nice | |
| [13:34] <hazmat> we have lots of non zk state things documented | |
| [13:34] <TheMue> wrtp: Seen my nick. Where do I know more? | |
| [13:34] <hazmat> TheMue, pinger presence nodes | |
| [13:34] <hazmat> as something to be documented | |
| [13:34] <wrtp> TheMue: deviations of go juju state implementation from py juju state implementation | |
| [13:36] <wrtp> hazmat: some of this stuff could definitely do with some more documentation, but i feel that the session expiration behaviour, in particular, is an implementation detail that would read well in the code, but isn't inevitable from the architecture of the system. | |
| [13:37] <TheMue> hazmat, wrtp: Just took a look for orientation. I've never touched them, sorry. | |
| [13:37] <wrtp> hazmat: although some internal implementation overview docs might be good too, i guess. | |
| [13:38] <wrtp> hazmat: most of the stuff in docs/source/internals seems to be about higher-level and zk stuff, rather than how stuff is actually done in the python itself | |
| [13:41] <wrtp> hazmat: is there a place that i can see all the proposals like your stop proposal? (just the mailing list archive?) | |
| [13:43] <hazmat> wrtp, agreed and the session expiration handling is also a higher level detail | |
| [13:44] <wrtp> hazmat: i guess so | |
| [13:44] <hazmat> wrtp, their published as branches under code.launchpad.net/juju | |
| [13:44] <wrtp> hazmat: hmm, useful :-) | |
| [13:45] <hazmat> their isn't a good index of just the branches | |
| [13:45] <hazmat> that are docs | |
| [13:45] <hazmat> i've also got rest-api, security, environment-settings proposals extant there | |
| [13:46] <wrtp> hazmat: might be useful if the branches were named xxx-proposal | |
| [13:46] <hazmat> true | |
| [14:22] * Aram is using Go linear time regular expressions to validate PCRE regular expressions so that I can be sure they are also linear time. | |
| [14:22] <Aram> this seems... weird. | |
| [14:40] <hazmat> the nodejs package manager is really quite nice | |
| [14:42] <Aram> I heard the same about it as well. | |
| [14:43] <Aram> IMO node.js is a terrible way of doing things, but I actually like the guys because they are bold enough to try something different. | |
| [14:43] <Aram> people are afraid to try new things these days. | |
| [14:57] <TheMue> Aram: Not only these days. Leaving well known paths hurts many people. | |
| [14:58] <Aram> yeah, I was using "these days" in a very loose sense, more likely "since the dawn of humanity" :). | |
| [14:59] <TheMue> Aram: OK, this timespan matches. | |
| [15:16] <wrtp> Aram: doesn't it depend very much on the input text? | |
| [15:20] <hazmat> Aram, agreed, client/server language unification is nice, but via callback hell.. ick.. | |
| [15:20] <hazmat> Aram, their tooling and underlying event reactor usage (libev) is quite nice though | |
| [15:53] <Aram> wrtp: yes, depends on the input text, that's what I am using for the first Go regexp, to validate it before sending it to PCRE> | |
| [15:54] <TheMue> Anyone interested in a small proposal: https://codereview.appspot.com/6305067 ? | |
| [15:54] <Aram> s/for/with/ | |
| [16:18] <wrtp> TheMue: LGTM | |
| [16:19] <wrtp> TheMue: although i don't seem to be getting proposal emails any more. | |
| [16:19] <TheMue> wrtp: Thx | |
| [16:19] <wrtp> TheMue: i saw my own reply, but not your original proposal | |
| [16:19] <TheMue> wrtp: Maybe due to the URI I used. | |
| [16:20] <wrtp> TheMue: which URI was that? | |
| [16:21] <TheMue> wrtp: First bzr push --remember lp:~themue/juju-core/go-state-relation-endpoint-verification and then lbox propose -cr -for lp:juju-core | |
| [16:21] <TheMue> wrtp: Both times I used juju-core. | |
| [16:22] <wrtp> TheMue: it should've worked, i think | |
| [16:22] <TheMue> wrtp: I would expect it too. | |
| [16:22] <TheMue> wrtp: Your proposal using juju popped up instead. | |
| [17:03] <Aram> "launchpad.net/juju-core/juju/state" | |
| [17:03] <Aram> what an ugly import | |
| [17:04] <Aram> can we do better? | |
| [17:16] <Aram> my bzr foo is lacking, why bzr branch lp:juju-core puts everything in juju-core as oposed to juju-core/juju as should be for the import paths to work? | |
| [17:16] * Aram is confused. | |
| [17:45] <TheMue> Aram: There's a mail by Gustavo on juju-dev about the naming. | |
| [17:46] <Aram> I've seen it. still confused about bzr branch dehavior though | |
| [17:46] <Aram> behavior | |
| [17:47] <TheMue> Aram: I'm coming more from svn and hg, so I'm sometime confused too. | |
| [17:47] <Aram> likewise. | |
| === davechen1y is now known as davecheney | |