| [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 | |