| [01:54] <davecheney> wallyworld: can you get to launchpad atm ? | |
| [01:55] * wallyworld checks | |
| [01:55] <wallyworld> davecheney: appears ok, what error are you seeing? | |
| [01:55] <davecheney> https://launchpad.net/juju-core times out | |
| [01:55] <wallyworld> works quickly for me | |
| [01:56] <wallyworld> maybe they were doing a deployment? | |
| [01:56] <wallyworld> still broken? | |
| [01:56] <davecheney> yup | |
| [01:56] <davecheney> trying from another site | |
| [01:56] <davecheney> oh, finally | |
| [01:56] <wallyworld> good luck | |
| [01:56] <wallyworld> \o/ | |
| [01:56] <davecheney> launchpad is slow as fuck for me most days | |
| [01:56] <davecheney> but this was unusually lethargic | |
| [01:57] <wallyworld> it's not bad for me | |
| [01:57] <wallyworld> there's been a lot of work into performance improvements over the last 12 months | |
| [01:57] <davecheney> what times to they schedule deployments ? | |
| [01:57] <wallyworld> if you have any particular pages that are slow, let me know and i'll look into it | |
| [01:58] <davecheney> everythign is slow for me | |
| [01:58] <wallyworld> no down time deployments are done as needed, and should be transparent | |
| [01:58] <davecheney> 2-5 second page loag times | |
| [01:58] <davecheney> multiple locations | |
| [01:58] <davecheney> multiple computers | |
| [01:58] <wallyworld> fast down time deployments are done 3 times a day and result in about a 2 second outage | |
| [01:58] <wallyworld> juju-core just loaded for me in 1 second | |
| [01:59] <wallyworld> cold | |
| [01:59] <wallyworld> maybe your connection has higher latency to the data centres? | |
| [01:59] <davecheney> https://launchpad.net/juju-core/+milestone/1.9.3 4 seconds | |
| [01:59] <wallyworld> 0.52 for me | |
| [02:00] <davecheney> i'm on iinet, your on tpg | |
| [02:00] <wallyworld> yeah | |
| [02:00] <davecheney> neither of those are top shelf isps | |
| [02:00] <wallyworld> nope | |
| [02:00] <davecheney> but this happens for me from different locations | |
| [02:00] <wallyworld> but cheap :-) | |
| [02:00] <davecheney> different computers | |
| [02:00] <davecheney> was in melbourne over the weekend on optus cable | |
| [02:00] <davecheney> same | |
| [02:00] <wallyworld> hmmm. i can't easily explain the difference | |
| [02:00] <davecheney> don't worry | |
| [02:01] <davecheney> i'm used to it | |
| [02:01] <wallyworld> :-( | |
| [02:01] <wallyworld> makes it hard to work efficiently | |
| [02:01] <davecheney> yup | |
| [02:02] <wallyworld> the guys are focused on performance issues, but they do need more than one data sample to be able to do anything concrete | |
| [02:02] <wallyworld> especially if it is not slow across the board | |
| [02:02] <davecheney> who should I complain too ? | |
| [02:02] <wallyworld> Purple squad is on maintenance and hang out in #launchpad-dev - they are very responsive | |
| [02:03] <wallyworld> another option is to go to a page on qastaging.launchpad.net and turn on tracing, i can help you with that if you want | |
| [02:04] <wallyworld> qastaging is slower than prod, but it may show some issues worth looking at | |
| [02:04] <wallyworld> have you checked your latency to the data centre? | |
| [02:04] <davecheney> http://d.pr/KwdU | |
| [02:05] <davecheney> http://d.pr/i/JVOI | |
| [02:05] <davecheney> solid 312ms | |
| [02:06] <davecheney> anyway, it's not your job to debug lp problems | |
| [02:06] <davecheney> thanks for checking | |
| [02:08] <wallyworld> no problems, but it would be nice to sort it out | |
| [02:09] <wallyworld> davecheney: so, out of interest, in the light blue bar, what's the waiting time vs connecting time? | |
| [02:10] <davecheney> connection and ssl neg is in excess of 2.5 seconds on the second screenshot | |
| [02:10] <davecheney> i have no idea how you are negoating faster | |
| [02:10] <davecheney> it's a function of rtt | |
| [02:10] <davecheney> wallyworld: you're using firefox, right ? | |
| [02:11] <wallyworld> davecheney: so, the 1.6s time i gave comes from an ajax info widget on lp, which i think developers get. i also have the connect time like you | |
| [02:11] <davecheney> dunno how you got, 12:59 < wallyworld> 0.52 for me then | |
| [02:12] <wallyworld> my graph says a waiting time of 2.2 seconds, and lp tells it it spent 1.6 seconds processing, so that leaves 0.6 seconds to get the data back to my browser i guess | |
| [02:12] <wallyworld> that 0.52 for +milestone above was also the lp reported processing tim | |
| [02:13] <davecheney> all lies i tell ya! | |
| [02:13] <davecheney> anyway, seriously, i don't care about this | |
| [02:13] <davecheney> slow I can handle, as long as it's not down | |
| [02:14] <wallyworld> fair enough. as a data point then, my connect time (incl ssl) is around 1.5, lp render/processing time is between 0.5 and 1.6, and receiving data to browser takes about 0.3 | |
| [05:50] <davecheney> ping https://codereview.appspot.com/6855101/ | |
| [05:57] <wallyworld> davecheney: i'd +1 it but i fear i don't know enough to be able to offer anything worthwhile. it looks ok to me though | |
| [05:57] <davecheney> wallyworld: thanks | |
| [05:57] <davecheney> you coudl always dist-upgrade and test it :) | |
| [05:57] <wallyworld> want me to +1 it anyway? | |
| [05:57] <wallyworld> i'm on quantal already | |
| [05:58] <davecheney> do the juju tests pass for you ? | |
| [05:58] <wallyworld> let me test it then | |
| [05:58] <wallyworld> i have not run them, will do so now | |
| [05:58] <wallyworld> i've just been running goose tests | |
| [05:58] <davecheney> go test launchpad.net/juju-core/... | |
| [05:58] <wallyworld> yeah, will do after i merge your branch | |
| [05:58] <davecheney> nah, do it before | |
| [05:58] <davecheney> otherwise you won't know if I fixed anything | |
| [05:59] <wallyworld> ok, need to pull tip first | |
| [05:59] <davecheney> go get -v launchpad.net/juju-core/... will do that for you | |
| [05:59] <davecheney> if you haven't already checked it out | |
| [05:59] <wallyworld> i have the code checked out etc, i'm just used to using bzr | |
| [05:59] <wallyworld> is go get the preferred way? | |
| [06:00] <davecheney> if you have never checkout out the code, it is a fast way to get all the deps | |
| [06:00] <davecheney> if you already have a working copy | |
| [06:00] <davecheney> it'll screw it up royally | |
| [06:00] <wallyworld> yeah, i have everything checked out and built | |
| [06:00] <wallyworld> i used go get right at the start | |
| [06:00] <davecheney> +1 | |
| [06:01] <davecheney> i have trunk under a cobzr branch called trunk | |
| [06:01] <davecheney> so whenever I want to know what others are doing i do | |
| [06:01] <davecheney> cobzr switch trunk ; cobzr pull | |
| [06:01] <wallyworld> yeah, me too | |
| [06:02] <davecheney> was, http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~gophers/juju-core/trunk/view/head:/README useful at all ? | |
| [06:02] <wallyworld> i used to use light weight checkouts etc, and bzr switch, but am trying cobzr | |
| [06:02] <wallyworld> it stores the branches in a hidden dir which is both convenient and annoying | |
| [06:03] <wallyworld> davecheney: yes! i used that to get going | |
| [06:03] <davecheney> cool | |
| [06:03] <davecheney> glad it was useful | |
| [06:03] <wallyworld> thanks for writing it :-) | |
| [06:03] <davecheney> np, you can/should/might steal it for goose | |
| [06:03] <wallyworld> yeah | |
| [06:03] <wallyworld> ok, tests fail as expected | |
| [06:03] <wallyworld> now to try your branch | |
| [06:03] <davecheney> huzzah! | |
| [06:03] <davecheney> it'll be whinging about can't find tools | |
| [06:04] <davecheney> no, from memory the actual error is it can't find a suitable ami to 'fake' boot | |
| [06:04] <davecheney> this change fills in the fixtures to make that happen | |
| [06:05] <wallyworld> error was: cannot find image satisfying constraints: error getting instance types: 404 Not Found | |
| [06:05] <davecheney> wallyworld: yup, that is the error | |
| [06:10] <wallyworld> davecheney: tests running but taking a loooooong time - appears hung running the updated test | |
| [06:11] <wallyworld> ie nothing after "ok launchpad.net/juju-core/environs/config 0.373s" | |
| [06:13] <davecheney> presences tests take over 70 seconds on my machine | |
| [06:13] <davecheney> gocheck reports when the test is done, not when it starts | |
| [06:13] <davecheney> check top | |
| [06:13] <davecheney> you should see a number of someting.test processes running | |
| [06:13] <wallyworld> davecheney: what do i look for? | |
| [06:14] <davecheney> a child of a process call go | |
| [06:14] <davecheney> │ ├─bash───go─┬─2*[6g] | |
| [06:14] <davecheney> │ │ ├─container.test─┬─mongod | |
| [06:14] <davecheney> │ │ │ └─2*[{container.test}] | |
| [06:14] <davecheney> │ │ ├─downloader.test───4*[{downloader.test}] | |
| [06:14] <davecheney> │ │ └─9*[{go}] | |
| [06:14] <davecheney> something like this, if pstree is your poison | |
| [06:14] <wallyworld> i have a dummy.test | |
| [06:15] <davecheney> from memory the default test timeout is 120s | |
| [06:15] <davecheney> it'll fail eventually | |
| [06:16] <wallyworld> ok, it's been a fair bit longer | |
| [06:17] <davecheney> gotta go | |
| [06:17] <davecheney> will be online in an hour or so | |
| [06:17] <davecheney> if tests are fucked, email juju-dev with the output | |
| [06:17] <davecheney> or raise an issue | |
| [06:17] <wallyworld> ok, bye | |
| [06:18] <wallyworld> just died now! | |
| [06:22] <wallyworld> but works when run again | |
| [07:47] <TheMue> Morning. | |
| [08:05] <fwereade> mornings | |
| [08:14] <TheMue> fwereade, davecheney: Hiya. | |
| [08:14] <fwereade> TheMue, davecheney, morning | |
| [08:17] <TheMue> Our new https://juju.ubuntu.com really looks good. | |
| [08:24] <davecheney> morning | |
| [08:46] <rogpeppe> fwereade, TheMue: mornin' | |
| [08:46] <TheMue> Hello, Mr Peppe | |
| [08:50] <fwereade> rogpeppe, heyhey | |
| [08:51] <fwereade> rogpeppe, you know the TxnRevno field, that we need to use to start document watches? | |
| [08:51] <rogpeppe> fwereade: yeah | |
| [08:51] <fwereade> rogpeppe, it appears to me as though you can *actually* just pass 0 and it'll still work anyway | |
| [08:51] <rogpeppe> fwereade: except you'll maybe get an event you don't need, right? | |
| [08:51] <fwereade> rogpeppe, I guess that perhaps you'll get an extra event sometimes | |
| [08:52] <rogpeppe> fwereade: maybe you don't care though | |
| [08:52] <fwereade> rogpeppe, it doesn't have any macro-level effects that I am sophisticated enough to detect | |
| [08:53] <rogpeppe> fwereade: it would mean doing strictly more work on restart | |
| [08:53] <fwereade> rogpeppe, yeah, I'm not proposing actually doing it | |
| [08:53] <fwereade> rogpeppe, the actual problem is that I was trying to use it, and doing it wrong, and couldn't see that from my tests | |
| [08:53] <rogpeppe> fwereade: interesting thought though - we might decide the simplicity is worth the network traffic | |
| [08:53] <fwereade> rogpeppe, and I am wondering if there's any way I can reliably goose it into doing the wrong thing | |
| [08:54] <rogpeppe> fwereade: it's just an optimisation, right? | |
| [08:54] <fwereade> rogpeppe, I dunno -- first time I used the API I just bunged 0 in and niemeyer was most unimpressed | |
| [08:54] <rogpeppe> lol | |
| [08:55] <rogpeppe> fwereade: well, the API doesn't actually give you the values - it just tells you that something has changed, no? | |
| [08:55] <fwereade> rogpeppe, I forget | |
| [08:55] <fwereade> rogpeppe, .Id is all I ever look at | |
| [08:55] <rogpeppe> fwereade: if that's true, it's never going to make any difference as long as you get at least the required events | |
| [08:56] <rogpeppe> fwereade: BTW, i've got a couple of CLs you might want to have a glance at if you fancy it. first is: https://codereview.appspot.com/6854107/ | |
| [08:56] <fwereade> rogpeppe, indeed -- anyway, I just thought it was interesting | |
| [08:57] <rogpeppe> fwereade: second is https://codereview.appspot.com/6856105/ (which is the last in the series) | |
| [08:57] <rogpeppe> fwereade: in terms of seeing problems, you'd see problems if the revno field was too high | |
| [08:57] <fwereade> rogpeppe, yeah | |
| [08:57] <rogpeppe> fwereade: so you might be able to goose it that way | |
| [08:58] <fwereade> rogpeppe, not from outside I think | |
| [08:58] <rogpeppe> fwereade: aren't you storing revnos in files? | |
| [08:58] <fwereade> rogpeppe, the problem was that I used the txnrevno field, instead of txn-revno, and got 0 every time | |
| [08:58] <fwereade> rogpeppe, I am but that's in a different area | |
| [08:59] <rogpeppe> fwereade: yeah, in that case, i'm not sure i can think of a test that makes any difference. | |
| [08:59] <rogpeppe> fwereade: 'cos if it's zero, you'll get a spurious first event, find that there's nothing to do, then do nothing | |
| [09:00] <fwereade> rogpeppe, you might be interested to take a look at https://codereview.appspot.com/6850105/ and https://codereview.appspot.com/6851110/ while I read yours properly | |
| [09:00] <fwereade> rogpeppe, yeah, exactly | |
| [09:00] <rogpeppe> fwereade: looking | |
| [09:02] <rogpeppe> fwereade: ah, i had taken a look at the first - i had one unpublished comment | |
| [09:03] <rogpeppe> fwereade: LGTM | |
| [09:03] <fwereade> rogpeppe, cheers, you have one too | |
| [09:04] <rogpeppe> s/dong/ding/ lol | |
| [09:05] <rogpeppe> fwereade: thanks | |
| [09:10] <fwereade> rogpeppe, and another LGTM, that look fantastic | |
| [09:10] <rogpeppe> fwereade: thanks! | |
| [09:12] <rogpeppe> fwereade: the window really is very short indeed. i think it must be on the order of <0.1s | |
| [09:12] <rogpeppe> fwereade: i've seen the "unauthorized access" problem precisely once | |
| [09:17] <fwereade> rogpeppe, fantastic | |
| [09:18] <rogpeppe> fwereade: basically the remote client and bootstrap-state are both racing for first access to the mongodb | |
| [09:18] <fwereade> rogpeppe, ah, right, ofc | |
| [09:19] <rogpeppe> fwereade: we're more likely to see the problem now because mgo redials about twice a second | |
| [09:49] <dimitern> jam, mgz: would you take a look https://codereview.appspot.com/6851112/ pls? | |
| [09:51] <jam> dimitern: looking | |
| [10:15] <TheMue> rogpeppe, fwereade: Would you take a look at https://codereview.appspot.com/6853075/? I changed and simplified the way it's working. | |
| [10:16] <rogpeppe> TheMue: looking | |
| [10:16] <TheMue> dimitern, jam: Good morning. | |
| [10:16] <jam> morning TheMue | |
| [10:16] <dimitern> TheMue: morning | |
| [10:19] <jam> dimitern: done | |
| [10:20] <dimitern> jam: thanks | |
| [10:25] <rogpeppe> TheMue: i like the idea (of just sourcing the file), but i'm not sure that env is the right way to print the env vars | |
| [10:25] <rogpeppe> TheMue: what happens if one of the vars has a newline in? | |
| [10:26] <TheMue> rogpeppe: Good hint, yes. | |
| [10:27] <TheMue> rogpeppe: Todays Py code is only grepping two values, but as a general purpose package I would like to provide all. | |
| [10:28] <TheMue> rogpeppe: Do you know a command to get the names of all environment variables? | |
| [10:28] <rogpeppe> TheMue: you could use awk | |
| [10:29] <TheMue> rogpeppe: Uuuh, last time I used awk has been last century. ;) | |
| [10:31] <rogpeppe> TheMue: something like this might do the job: | |
| [10:31] <rogpeppe> awk 'BEGIN {for(v in ENVIRON){s = ENVIRON[v]; gsub("\\", "\\\\", s); gsub("\n", "\\n", s); printf("%s=\"%s\"\n", v, s)}}' | |
| [10:31] <rogpeppe> TheMue: then you could use strconv.Unquote to read 'em in | |
| [10:32] <wallyworld> jam: dimitern: mgz: wanna have the standup now? | |
| [10:32] <TheMue> rogpeppe: Thx, I'll try. | |
| [10:32] <jam> works for me, is mgz here? | |
| [10:32] <rogpeppe> TheMue: there's probably a better tool around for doing this though | |
| [10:32] <rogpeppe> TheMue: you may even be able to use bash directly | |
| [10:33] <jam> wallyworld: I'm in mumble | |
| [10:33] <dimitern> wallyworld, jam: I'm ok with that | |
| [10:33] * wallyworld opens mumble | |
| [10:34] <wallyworld> jam: dimitern: i've hit that mumble bug again where it won't start, i have to reboot, give me a sec | |
| [10:34] <rogpeppe> ha that's funny, you learn something new every day. i always thought that $'foo' was the same as $foo | |
| [10:37] <jam> rogpeppe: do you mean $foo vs '$foo' ? | |
| [10:37] <jam> I haven't really seen $'foo' before. | |
| [10:37] <rogpeppe> jam: no | |
| [10:37] <rogpeppe> jam: neither had i | |
| [10:37] <rogpeppe> jam: except in rc | |
| [10:37] <rogpeppe> jam: and i'd presumed sh was similar like that | |
| [10:38] <rogpeppe> jam: try: echo $'foo\nbar' | |
| [10:45] <rogpeppe> TheMue: looks like "typeset -p -x" might give you what you need | |
| [10:46] <TheMue> rogpeppe: Looks nice, yes. | |
| [10:47] <TheMue> rogpeppe: Just fetched my old shell programming book. ;) | |
| [10:47] <rogpeppe> TheMue: alternatively, you could just parse the file. it wouldn't be too hard. | |
| [10:48] <TheMue> rogpeppe: Which one? The /etc/default/lxc? | |
| [10:48] <rogpeppe> TheMue: yeah | |
| [10:48] <TheMue> rogpeppe: Values in it could be based on environment variables too. ;) | |
| [10:49] <rogpeppe> TheMue: that's not too hard either | |
| [10:49] <rogpeppe> TheMue: os.Expand might help | |
| [10:49] <rogpeppe> TheMue: hmm, i dunno. at least using typeset you're guaranteed a standard format | |
| [10:50] <rogpeppe> TheMue: i wonder about the security implications of sourcing the shell script, but since it's in /etc, it's probably ok | |
| [10:50] <TheMue> rogpeppe: Yes, here this approach seems better. I started with parsing. But niemeyer had remarks. | |
| [10:51] <TheMue> rogpeppe: The Py code just sources it too. | |
| [10:51] <rogpeppe> TheMue: ok, that's interesting. | |
| [10:51] <rogpeppe> TheMue: what values do you need from it, BTW? | |
| [10:52] <TheMue> rogpeppe: For Juju only two, LXC_BRIDGE and LXC_ADDR. So they grepped it from env. But golxc is intended to be more general. So I would like to provide them all. | |
| [10:55] <rogpeppe> TheMue: one issue with your current approach is that you'll see env vars that are defined in the testing environment too AFAICS | |
| [10:55] <rogpeppe> TheMue: i think you need to start the shell command with a clean environment | |
| [10:56] <TheMue> rogpeppe: I'm sourcing an own file with self-defined values for testing. | |
| [10:57] <TheMue> rogpeppe: It's a copy, but with different values than the default values. | |
| [10:57] <TheMue> rogpeppe: At least some of them. | |
| [10:58] <rogpeppe> TheMue: i bet if you defined LXC_BRIDGE in your shell and deleted it from the "env" var, your test would still pass | |
| [11:00] <TheMue> rogpeppe: If it has the right value, yes. :/ | |
| [11:06] <wallyworld_> jam: mgz: test one two three | |
| [11:06] <mgz> ta! | |
| [11:39] <niemeyer> Yo! | |
| [11:39] <mgz> hey! | |
| [11:45] <niemeyer> mgz: Heya | |
| [11:45] <niemeyer> mgz: When's our next squash game? :-) | |
| [11:47] <mgz> well, that would be one excuse for a holiday in brazil :) | |
| [11:47] <niemeyer> mgz: Consider yourself invited :) | |
| [11:48] <niemeyer> mgz: Just yesterday I was playing a pretty good match against a friend and reminding of that game in Copenhagen.. it was great | |
| [11:48] <niemeyer> fwereade: Heya | |
| [11:52] <niemeyer> fwereade: https://codereview.appspot.com/6850105 is ready to go in | |
| [11:52] <fwereade> niemeyer, sweet! tyvm | |
| [11:52] <niemeyer> fwereade: Thank you! | |
| [11:59] * dimitern => lunch | |
| [12:02] * fwereade also | |
| [12:11] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: morning! | |
| [12:39] <TheMue> rogpeppe: Found an even simpler way. Wonna look again? | |
| [12:40] <rogpeppe> TheMue: sure | |
| [12:40] <TheMue> rogpeppe: Thanks. | |
| [12:43] <rogpeppe> TheMue: what are those double quotes doing at the start of script? | |
| [12:44] <rogpeppe> TheMue: (printenv -0 looks good BTW) | |
| [12:44] <TheMue> rogpeppe: Otherwise it isn't passed to sh as one argument. I wondered too. | |
| [12:45] <rogpeppe> TheMue: huh? | |
| [12:45] <rogpeppe> TheMue: have you tried it without them? | |
| [12:45] <TheMue> rogpeppe: Yep. | |
| [12:46] <TheMue> rogpeppe: Aargh, you meant now double quotes. | |
| [12:46] <TheMue> rogpeppe: That works, will remove and repropose it. *facepalm* | |
| [12:46] <rogpeppe> TheMue: s/now/no/ ? | |
| [12:46] <TheMue> rogpeppe: Yep, fingers too fast. ;) | |
| [12:48] <TheMue> rogpeppe: So, removed. Took them too automatically. | |
| [12:49] <niemeyer> TheMue: I think we should move on to MAAS instead of continuing to spend cycles on this | |
| [12:50] <TheMue> niemeyer: I'm reading the MAAS source in parallel. The remaining two branches are really small and you would do me a favour if I could complete them. | |
| [12:51] <niemeyer> TheMue: I'd agree if they were ready to land, but last time I've seen there were several issues, so it spends your time, my time, Roger's time, for a branch we won't be using any time soon | |
| [12:52] <TheMue> niemeyer: OK, but could you please take a look today to see if the direction now is better? | |
| [12:55] <niemeyer> TheMue: What happens if there is an LXC variable in the Go process? | |
| [12:57] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: i've raised that issue | |
| [12:57] <TheMue> niemeyer: Ah, yeah, IC. That's a problem in the Py code too, but there only for LXC_ADDR and LXC_BRIDGE. /etc/default/lxc overwrites the processes variable. | |
| [12:58] <rogpeppe> TheMue: you've got some more comments | |
| [12:58] <TheMue> rogpeppe: Thanks. | |
| [12:58] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: i think it should clear environment variables before sourcing the shell script | |
| [13:03] <TheMue> rogpeppe: The sourcing is only in a subshell for reading the values. | |
| [13:03] <rogpeppe> TheMue: that subshell inherits environment variables from the caller | |
| [13:03] <niemeyer> TheMue: That's not how environment works | |
| [13:04] <niemeyer> What roger said | |
| [13:04] <TheMue> niemeyer: Wanted to express that for the execution of lxc commands the environment is unchanged. | |
| [13:05] <niemeyer> TheMue: I don't understand how that changes the points made | |
| [13:05] <niemeyer> TheMue: A child cannot change a parent's environment, ever | |
| [13:05] <niemeyer> TheMue: But I'm not sure if that's what you're saying | |
| [13:05] <niemeyer> I mean, at least in computing | |
| [13:06] <niemeyer> IN the real world a child revamps a parent's environment in its entirety | |
| [13:06] <TheMue> niemeyer: *lol* | |
| [13:06] <TheMue> niemeyer: Yes, I know. I'm only using the way of the Py code to read values out of /etc/default/lxc | |
| [13:07] <TheMue> niemeyer: Here they've done the same, but grepping only for the LXC_ values to then read ADDR and BRIDGE. | |
| [13:07] <niemeyer> TheMue: Still doesn't change the points made | |
| [13:08] <niemeyer> TheMue: and the point is reather simple really | |
| [13:08] <niemeyer> rather | |
| [13:09] <TheMue> niemeyer: IMHO sourcing that file overwrites the processes environment when fetchiing the values out of it. Am I right? | |
| [13:09] <niemeyer> <rogpeppe> niemeyer: i think it should clear environment variables before sourcing the shell script | |
| [13:09] <niemeyer> <rogpeppe> TheMue: that subshell inherits environment variables from the caller | |
| [13:09] <niemeyer> TheMue: This is right | |
| [13:10] <TheMue> niemeyer: So the environment I'm parsing is too large, but it contains the values of /etc/default/lxc. Still right? | |
| [13:11] <TheMue> niemeyer: And by clearing the environment before I would reduce it to the values of that file. | |
| [13:12] <niemeyer> TheMue: Right | |
| [13:14] <TheMue> niemeyer: OK, then I know where we gor our wires crossed. (You say so?) | |
| [13:14] <TheMue> s/gor/got/ | |
| [13:35] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Can you please have a look at William's follow up when you have a second: https://codereview.appspot.com/6851110 | |
| [13:35] <niemeyer> Well, 10 minutes perhaps | |
| [13:35] <niemeyer> :) | |
| [13:35] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: will do | |
| [13:35] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Thanks | |
| [13:52] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: One branch reviewed and double LGTMed with trivials | |
| [13:52] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Only one left in the queue.. will get to that after lunch | |
| [13:52] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: thanks! | |
| [13:52] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: whee! | |
| [13:53] * rogpeppe should have some lunch too | |
| [13:53] <niemeyer> +1 | |
| [13:53] <niemeyer> :) | |
| [14:45] <fwereade> rogpeppe, ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| [14:45] <fwereade> FAIL: cert_test.go:50: certSuite.TestNewCA | |
| [14:45] <fwereade> cert_test.go:60: | |
| [14:45] <fwereade> c.Assert(caCert.NotAfter.Equal(expiry), Equals, true) | |
| [14:45] <fwereade> ... obtained bool = false | |
| [14:45] <fwereade> ... expected bool = true | |
| [14:45] <fwereade> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| [14:45] <fwereade> FAIL: cert_test.go:66: certSuite.TestNewServer | |
| [14:45] <fwereade> cert_test.go:81: | |
| [14:45] <fwereade> c.Assert(srvCert.NotAfter.Equal(expiry), Equals, true) | |
| [14:45] <fwereade> ... obtained bool = false | |
| [14:45] <fwereade> ... expected bool = true | |
| [14:45] <fwereade> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| [14:45] <fwereade> FAIL: cert_test.go:95: certSuite.TestVerify | |
| [14:45] <fwereade> cert_test.go:104: | |
| [14:45] <fwereade> c.Assert(err, IsNil) | |
| [14:45] <fwereade> ... value x509.CertificateInvalidError = x509.CertificateInvalidError{Cert:(*x509.Certificate)(0xf8400892c0), Reason:1} ("x509: certificate has expired or is not yet valid") | |
| [14:45] <fwereade> OOPS: 3 passed, 3 FAILED | |
| [14:45] <fwereade> --- FAIL: TestAll (1.96 seconds) | |
| [14:45] <fwereade> FAIL | |
| [14:45] <fwereade> FAIL launchpad.net/juju-core/cert 1.974s | |
| [14:45] <fwereade> rogpeppe, on trunk -- should I install something? | |
| [14:46] <rogpeppe> fwereade: hmm, passes for me | |
| [14:46] <rogpeppe> fwereade: i'll try against a different go version | |
| [14:46] <fwereade> rogpeppe, I'm still using 1.0.2 | |
| [14:46] <fwereade> rogpeppe, (er, did we decide to standardize on 1.0.3?) | |
| [14:47] <rogpeppe> fwereade: i'm not sure | |
| [14:47] <rogpeppe> fwereade: i think maybe 1.0.2 as that's what's bundled | |
| [14:47] <fwereade> rogpeppe, ah, yes, then I did that deliberately | |
| [14:47] * fwereade looks around shiftily | |
| [14:49] * rogpeppe builds 1.0.2 | |
| [14:49] <rogpeppe> fwereade: it passes on 1.0.3 BTW | |
| [14:50] <fwereade> rogpeppe, I did indeed assume you wouldn't have merged stuff that didn't work for you ;) | |
| [14:50] <rogpeppe> fwereade: i was compiling against tip, so it may not have | |
| [14:50] <rogpeppe> fwereade: hmm, 1.0.2 passes for me too | |
| [14:51] * fwereade can't keep up with the cool kids and their crazy avant-garde go versions | |
| [14:51] * fwereade goes off to run it more verbosely | |
| [14:51] <rogpeppe> fwereade: could you get it to print out the actual times you're seeing, please | |
| [14:52] <rogpeppe> fwereade: i.e. c.Logf("cert notafter: %v, expiry: %v", caCert.NotAfter, expiry) | |
| [14:54] <fwereade> rogpeppe, cert notafter: 2012-11-29 14:53:57 +0100 CET, expiry: 2012-11-29 15:53:57 +0100 CET | |
| [14:54] <fwereade> rogpeppe, the otherone's equivalent | |
| [14:55] <rogpeppe> fwereade: interesting. something to do with daylight savings | |
| [14:55] <fwereade> rogpeppe, and/or timezones :) | |
| [14:55] <rogpeppe> fwereade: yeah | |
| [14:55] <fwereade> rogpeppe, anotheradvantage of the distributed team :) | |
| [14:56] <rogpeppe> fwereade: yeah. i am GMT atm so particularly vulnerable to that kind of error | |
| [14:59] <fwereade> rogpeppe, I will assume that the fix will be simple but not immediate, and merge over the top of it, ok? | |
| [14:59] * TheMue wonders …oooOOO( Interesting behavior. ) | |
| [14:59] <rogpeppe> fwereade: yeah, i guess so. | |
| [14:59] <rogpeppe> fwereade: i'm just trying to reproduce the behaviour | |
| [15:08] <rogpeppe> fwereade: i can't seem to reproduce the behaviour, which is a bit off | |
| [15:08] <rogpeppe> odd | |
| [15:09] <fwereade> rogpeppe, huh, weird | |
| [15:09] <fwereade> TheMue, can you repro? you're in my timezone I think | |
| [15:09] <rogpeppe> fwereade: i tried using a time which i parsed from your timestamp | |
| [15:09] <TheMue> fwereade: Will try. | |
| [15:10] <rogpeppe> fwereade: could you try this: where the test calls time.Now(), could you make it call time.Now().UTC() instead. | |
| [15:11] <fwereade> rogpeppe, bingo | |
| [15:12] <fwereade> rogpeppe, fixes all 3 | |
| [15:12] <rogpeppe> fwereade: hmm, it shouldn't make a difference | |
| [15:12] <rogpeppe> fwereade: i'll push a fix see if i can fix the underlying Go too | |
| [15:13] <rogpeppe> s/see/and see/ | |
| [15:13] <fwereade> rogpeppe, great, thanks, consider it pre-LGTMed if that's all you do :) | |
| [15:13] <TheMue> fwereade, rogpeppe: Same error: http://paste.ubuntu.com/1394620/ | |
| [15:32] <fwereade> rogpeppe, sorry, I have no reason to still be waiting for your fix, do I? can I merge? | |
| [15:33] <rogpeppe> fwereade: you can and may | |
| [15:34] <fwereade> rogpeppe, cheers | |
| [15:35] <rogpeppe> fwereade: i'm trying to understand the problem a little more before i commit a fix. it's weird that i can't reproduce the problem here. | |
| [15:40] <TheMue> rogpeppe: Clearing the environment is handled now. But no need to review so far, I'm currently diving into MAAS. Only has been a litle fix to answer your last review. | |
| [15:40] <rogpeppe> TheMue: ok | |
| [15:42] * TheMue is stepping out a bit earlier today. Had no lunch due to pre-christmas-dinner with friends. | |
| [15:43] <fwereade> TheMue, enjoy | |
| [15:44] <TheMue> fwereade: Thanks. | |
| [15:58] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Woohay TLS | |
| [15:58] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Just reviewed that last one | |
| [15:58] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: thanks! | |
| [16:00] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: BTW 0.5 seconds should be perfectly sufficient - mgo redials many times a second, and bootstrap-state takes very little time to complete | |
| [16:01] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: i can raise the length of time anyway if you'd like. | |
| [16:01] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: 0.5 second is spent in a trivial sneeze of AWS | |
| [16:02] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: fair enough. BTW what in the ssh logic were you thinking we might miss? | |
| [16:02] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: The ssh logic :-) | |
| [16:03] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: if we're not using ssh, why should we care about that? | |
| [16:04] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: ssh is battle tested as public doors.. I just feel a bit more comfortable there. | |
| [16:13] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: i quoted the serverPEMPath because cfg.DataDir may reasonably contain spaces. quotes or backslashes are much more unlikely though. | |
| [16:14] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: do you still think it's a bad idea to do that? | |
| [16:14] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: We know it doesn't contain spaces, in the same way we know it doesn't contain quotes or backslashes | |
| [16:14] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: do we know that ioutil.TempDir will never return a name with a space in? | |
| [16:14] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Pretending we're being safer isn't necessary | |
| [16:14] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Do we know it will never return a name with quotes? | |
| [16:15] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: tbh, i'd prefer to know what the quoting rules *are* for upstart... | |
| [16:15] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Isn't that a line passed to a shell? | |
| [16:16] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: no, it goes into the upstart config file which has its own syntax | |
| [16:16] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Isn't upstart taking that line from its config file and passing it to a shell? | |
| [16:16] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: i don't think so. | |
| [16:16] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: I'd be surprised | |
| [16:16] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: i think it invokes the command directly | |
| [16:16] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: But it doesn't really matter | |
| [16:17] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: i did delve into the source once to try to find out | |
| [16:17] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: The points made still hold | |
| [16:17] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: does that mean i should remove all the shquote calls elsewhere? | |
| [16:18] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: You're not using shquote there | |
| [16:18] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: i'm using it to quote the same file name elsewhere | |
| [16:18] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: i think maybe i'll add a sanity check early on that checks that DataDir is ok might be good. then i can relax. | |
| [16:19] <rogpeppe> s/maybe i'll add / | |
| [16:19] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Sure.. whatever suits. The point made is pretty trivial: dumb-quoting and no-quoting work the same | |
| [16:20] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Hmm.. isn't DataDIr coming from our own code? | |
| [16:20] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Where's the tempdir coming from? | |
| [16:21] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: i kinda presumed that c.MkDir() called ioutil.TempDir somewhere along the line. | |
| [16:21] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: i may be wrong | |
| [16:22] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Ah, for testing.. sure.. I'd be eagerly awaiting for the first bug report. :-) | |
| [16:22] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: :-) | |
| [16:22] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: This works in upstart, btw: exec echo "foo" > /tmp/foo | |
| [16:22] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: So it's surely a shell. | |
| [16:23] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: yes, i think > is special syntax. | |
| [16:23] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: For a shell? :-) | |
| [16:23] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: try echo "foo`echo bar`" | |
| [16:23] <niemeyer> exec echo "foo" 2>&1 > /tmp/foo | |
| [16:24] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Is that special syntax too? :) | |
| [16:24] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: quite possibly | |
| [16:24] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: did you try the above example? | |
| [16:25] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: if it succeeds, then i'm more convinced | |
| [16:25] <niemeyer> exec echo "`cat /etc/passwd`" 2>&1 > /tmp/foo | |
| [16:25] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Try it.. :) | |
| [16:29] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: in that case, cool, we can just use shquote | |
| [16:30] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Scott is a pretty sharp guy.. I'd be surprised if he had reimplemented a shell inside upstart | |
| [16:32] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: well, there's *something* going on, because the upstart file itself isn't a shell script, so it has to parse the shell line to some degree before bundling it up to pass to the shell again | |
| [16:33] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: it loses newlines from within the quotes, for example, so it's not exactly the same | |
| [16:34] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: It's trivial to pick an exec line out of a file, but we're not really reimplementing upstart today :) | |
| [16:34] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: it can be more than one line | |
| [16:34] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: but yeah... | |
| [16:34] <niemeyer> Heh | |
| [16:41] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: so with the above in mind, is it ok if i use shquote, rather than leaving it unquoted. it would make me feel more comfortable. | |
| [16:41] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Of course | |
| [16:46] <rogpeppe> fwereade: could you confirm that this branch still fails when testing cert, please? lp:~rogpeppe/juju-core/174-fix-cert-times | |
| [16:47] <fwereade> rogpeppe, branching | |
| [16:47] <fwereade> rogpeppe, passes | |
| [16:48] <rogpeppe> fwereade: weird | |
| [16:48] <rogpeppe> fwereade: because it looks like x509 calls .UTC itself | |
| [16:55] <rogpeppe> fwereade: ah! but only in tip, not in 1.0.3 or earlier | |
| [16:56] <rogpeppe> fwereade: and now i can reproduce the issue, i'm happy to make the fix | |
| [16:58] <fwereade> rogpeppe, ah, cool | |
| === niemeyer_ is now known as niemeyer | |
| [17:07] <fwereade> rogpeppe, niemeyer: unexpected snag with environs.InstanceId type: state.Machine.InstanceId() should surely return one? | |
| [17:07] <rogpeppe> fwereade: i'd make it state.InstanceId | |
| [17:08] <fwereade> rogpeppe, doesn't feel quite right tbh | |
| [17:08] <fwereade> rogpeppe, but I guess I can live with it :) | |
| [17:08] <rogpeppe> fwereade: environs already uses state types | |
| [17:08] <fwereade> rogpeppe, indeed so | |
| [17:08] <fwereade> rogpeppe, it's just that InstanceId really doesn't feel very statey :) | |
| [17:09] <rogpeppe> fwereade: if it wasn't statey, the state wouldn't want to talk about it :-) | |
| [17:09] * fwereade shrugs | |
| [17:09] <fwereade> rogpeppe, fair enough | |
| [17:10] <niemeyer> fwereade: I agree with both points.. it'd indeed fit better in environs, I think having it in state is also fine | |
| [17:10] <fwereade> niemeyer, sgtm | |
| [17:10] <niemeyer> robbiew: I guess that meeting isn't happening? | |
| [17:10] <robbiew> niemeyer: it is | |
| [17:10] <robbiew> we are running late in another call | |
| [17:10] <niemeyer> robbiew: Hmm, ok | |
| [17:12] <rogpeppe> fwereade: do you wanna take a look at this, for form's sake? https://codereview.appspot.com/6858090 | |
| [17:12] * fwereade looks | |
| [17:13] <fwereade> rogpeppe, LGTM | |
| [17:13] <rogpeppe> fwereade: (i verified that the new tests failed on my machine against 1.0.2) | |
| [17:13] <rogpeppe> fwereade: ta | |
| [17:13] <rogpeppe> fwereade: submitting as i deem it trivial :-) | |
| [17:14] <fwereade> rogpeppe, SGTM | |
| [17:28] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: i don't think that waiting for a minute when we get an unauthorized error is a good idea | |
| [17:29] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: that means the first connection will always take at least a minute | |
| [17:29] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Why? | |
| [17:29] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: because we try with the admin password, and if that fails, we try with the password hash | |
| [17:29] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: I thougth you said it takes less than 0.5 seconds? | |
| [17:29] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: so for the first connection we will always get ErrUnauthorized | |
| [17:29] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: So we tell the user unauthorized? | |
| [17:30] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: it's part of our standard login heuristics | |
| [17:30] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: see juju.NewConn | |
| [17:30] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: So I don't understand what's going on there | |
| [17:30] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: WHy are we retrying at all if we're retrying anyway? | |
| [17:30] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: it's all as we discussed earlier | |
| [17:30] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: ages ago, that is | |
| [17:30] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: I don't think we discussed this? | |
| [17:31] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: I don't recall talking about that 0.5 delay | |
| [17:31] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: we're retrying in that specific circumstance, using a different password each time | |
| [17:31] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Yeah, but that's flaky | |
| [17:31] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Vastly changing results if the server takes 0.5 seconds to answer something is really bad | |
| [17:32] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: it's not if the server takes 0.5 seconds to answer. it's if bootstrap-state takes more than 0.5 seconds from dialling to initialising the state. | |
| [17:32] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: That's exactly what I mean | |
| [17:32] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: and actually, that's not right either | |
| [17:33] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: maybe juju.NewConn should do the timed retry actually | |
| [17:33] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: What happens when bootstrap-state dials that starts that period? | |
| [17:33] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: as it's retrying anyway | |
| [17:33] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Yeah, that would probably be less flaky | |
| [17:33] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: mgo continually redials with no delay | |
| [17:33] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: (i think that's not right actually) | |
| [17:34] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: I don't know what that means in this context | |
| [17:34] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: It doesn't matter what mgo does | |
| [17:34] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: What happens when bootstrap-state dials to kick that 0.5 period? | |
| [17:34] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: i don't understand the question | |
| [17:35] <niemeyer> <rogpeppe> niemeyer: it's not if the server takes 0.5 seconds to answer. it's if bootstrap-state takes more than 0.5 seconds from dialling to initialising the state. | |
| [17:35] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: "from dialling"!? | |
| [17:35] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: What happens when it dials to get that 0.5 period kicked off? | |
| [17:35] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: I can't see how that influences the period at all | |
| [17:35] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: bootstrap-state continually redials the mgo server while it's coming up. | |
| [17:35] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: MongoDB starts, and you'd get unauthorized, even if bootstrap-state hasn't even started running | |
| [17:35] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: yes | |
| [17:35] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Yes, I don't think that's relevant | |
| [17:36] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: the client is also continually redialling the mgo server | |
| [17:36] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Exactly | |
| [17:36] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: bootstrap-state doesn't have to even start for that 0.5 period to pass by | |
| [17:36] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: bootstrap-state starts well before mongodb is accepting connections | |
| [17:37] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: but i agree the timeout in Open isn't right | |
| [17:37] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Because? MongoDB is started before that | |
| [17:37] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: You're trusting on external times of things that can take whatever time to run depending on scheduling and whatnot | |
| [17:37] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: mongodb takes a while to answer connections. bootstrap-state is started immediately after starting mongo. | |
| [17:37] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: yeah, that's true | |
| [17:37] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: There's nothing about that "from dialling to initialising the state" | |
| [17:38] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: i'm much happier putting the timeout in juju.NewConn | |
| [17:38] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Sounds good, we just have to make sure this is more reliable | |
| [17:39] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: it's a pity we can't get bootstrap-state to tell mongodb to open a new port | |
| [18:01] <fwereade> rogpeppe, niemeyer: https://codereview.appspot.com/6844103 should be trivial (state.InstanceId) | |
| [18:03] <niemeyer> fwereade: On it | |
| [18:04] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: if you could take a brief look at https://codereview.appspot.com/6856105 before i submit; in particular the new code in juju.NewConn, that would be great. | |
| [18:05] <niemeyer> +func (inst *instance) Id() state.InstanceId { | |
| [18:05] <niemeyer> + return state.InstanceId(inst.InstanceId) | |
| [18:05] <niemeyer> } | |
| [18:05] <niemeyer> fwereade: Why do we have a method that returns a public field? | |
| [18:05] <niemeyer> fwereade: Did you spot why when doing it? | |
| [18:06] <fwereade> niemeyer, to satisfy environs.Instance, I think | |
| [18:06] <niemeyer> fwereade: A field can't be part of an interfae | |
| [18:06] <niemeyer> interface | |
| [18:06] <fwereade> niemeyer, hence the method | |
| [18:06] <fwereade> niemeyer, which is part of the interface | |
| [18:06] <niemeyer> fwereade: Ah, it's because that field is in ec2.Instance, actually | |
| [18:07] <niemeyer> fwereade: Sure, I know why the method exist | |
| [18:07] <niemeyer> s | |
| [18:07] <niemeyer> fwereade: It wasn't clear why the field existed | |
| [18:07] <fwereade> niemeyer, oh, yes, sorry, that too | |
| [18:07] <niemeyer> fwereade: CHeers | |
| [18:14] * rogpeppe has to go now. | |
| [18:15] <rogpeppe> g'night all | |
| [18:15] <rogpeppe> niemeyer: if you like the new change, i'll submit a bit later. | |
| [18:15] <fss> niemeyer: lol | |
| [18:15] <fss> niemeyer: ops, wrong message | |
| [18:15] <fss> niemeyer: sorry x) | |
| [18:16] <niemeyer> rogpeppe: Super, cheers man | |
| [18:17] <niemeyer> fwereade: LGTM with a couple of trivials. Thanks | |
| [18:17] <niemeyer> fss: :) | |
| [18:17] <fwereade> niemeyer, cheers | |
| [18:18] <fwereade> niemeyer, the casting in the tests was justified in my mind on the basis that, well, we know the method signature and therefore the type | |
| [18:19] <fwereade> niemeyer, and it's slightly more readable IMO | |
| [18:19] <fwereade> niemeyer, no big deal, I'll change them | |
| [18:20] <niemeyer> fwereade: In general that should be fine, but these tests are precisely the tests verifying that we know the method signature | |
| [18:20] <niemeyer> fwereade: Note that the comment is specifically on the test of the InstanceId method itself | |
| [18:20] <fwereade> niemeyer, ah, yes, true | |
| [18:21] <fwereade> niemeyer, ok, sgtm, thanks | |
| [18:21] <niemeyer> fwereade: My pleasure | |
| [20:29] <fwereade> rogpeppe, can you precis the thinking behind having an explicitly required MachinerWorker but not an UpgraderWorker? | |
| [20:29] <fwereade> rogpeppe, I would just as soon make them both implicit... | |
| [21:15] <niemeyer> fwereade: The upgrader is a bit more attached to the details of the agent itself | |
| [21:15] <niemeyer> fwereade: Although I'm not sure either if there's enough justification | |
| [21:24] <niemeyer> davecheney: Good morning Dave | |
| [21:25] <niemeyer> davecheney: Please ping me when you have a moment for a call | |
| [21:26] <davecheney> niemeyer: morning | |
| [21:26] <davecheney> lemmie get my headset | |
| [21:31] <davecheney> ready to go, g+ ? | |
| [21:32] <niemeyer> davecheney: Yep | |
| [21:33] <niemeyer> davecheney: https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/449c0b5562132d520a43332aaa7f1eb67ec41bd1?authuser=0&hl=en | |
| [21:33] <davecheney> ta, for some reason you never show as online on g+ for me | |
| [21:41] <niemeyer> davecheney: https://codereview.appspot.com/6854098/diff/2001/environs/ec2/local_test.go?column_width=90 | |
| [21:41] <niemeyer> davecheney: ping | |
| [21:42] <davecheney> niemeyer: ack | |
| [21:42] <davecheney> lost you | |
| [21:42] <niemeyer> davecheney: Okay, let me reconnect.. are you still up? | |
| [21:42] <davecheney> yeah, hangout is still working | |
| [21:42] <niemeyer> davecheney: Cool, was my side only then | |