| [07:06] <davecheney> soooo much better | |
| [07:07] <davecheney> http://paste.ubuntu.com/1433970/ | |
| [07:57] <TheMue> Morning | |
| [07:58] <fwereade> TheMue, heyhey | |
| [07:58] <TheMue> fwereade: Can't see you, you are not here. ;) | |
| [07:58] <TheMue> fwereade: Morning. :) | |
| [07:58] <TheMue> fwereade: Thought you're on vacation today? | |
| [07:59] <fwereade> TheMue, kinda sorta -- I need to do a half day today to catch up with monday when I took an uncheduled one | |
| [08:00] <fwereade> TheMue, I haven't quite decied whether I'm "really" working this morning yet though | |
| [08:00] <fwereade> ;) | |
| [08:00] <TheMue> fwereade: Hehe, here sometimes typical office jobs have more clear constraints. | |
| [08:17] <fwereade> TheMue, ok, just popping out, sent another comment on the FW | |
| [08:18] <TheMue> fwereade: Just seen it, thanks. Enjoy your day. | |
| === mthaddon` is now known as mthaddon | |
| [11:03] <dimitern> mgz: ping | |
| [11:03] <wallyworld_> dimitern: can you hear me? | |
| [11:03] <dimitern> wallyworld_: no | |
| [11:09] <TheMue> *lol* | |
| [11:09] <mgz> dimitern: hey | |
| [11:10] <dimitern> mgz: mumble? | |
| [11:11] <mgz> I'm on. | |
| [11:32] <Aram> hello. | |
| [11:34] <TheMue> Aram: Hi | |
| [11:43] <niemeyer> Mornings! | |
| [11:47] <dimitern> niemeyer: morning | |
| [11:51] <TheMue> niemeyer: Hiya | |
| [12:04] <TheMue> So, lunchtime. BIAB | |
| [12:35] <fwereade> morning everyone | |
| [13:07] <niemeyer> TheMue: ping | |
| [13:08] <fwereade> niemeyer, in case TheMue's still at lunch, I was wondering a bit about EnsureSubordinate naming | |
| [13:08] <niemeyer> fwereade: Heya | |
| [13:08] <niemeyer> fwereade: Are you working or on holiday today? | |
| [13:08] <fwereade> niemeyer, catching up a half day I took off unscheduled on monday | |
| [13:08] <niemeyer> fwereade: Just to see how much I can bother you ;_) | |
| [13:09] <fwereade> niemeyer, I am eminently botherable :) | |
| [13:09] <niemeyer> ROTFL | |
| [13:09] <niemeyer> fwereade: Cool, let's see naming first then :) | |
| [13:09] <fwereade> niemeyer, EnsureSubordinate is, in my mind, a sensible contraction of EnsureHasSubordinateIfThatIsSensible | |
| [13:10] <niemeyer> fwereade: Agreed, not trying to explain it all there | |
| [13:11] <fwereade> niemeyer, for some reason EnsureHasSubordinate feels, er, a bit different | |
| [13:11] <niemeyer> fwereade: The clarity I was aming for is that foo.EnsureBarer generally ensures that foo is a barer | |
| [13:11] <niemeyer> fwereade: It feels awkward to call out ru.EnsureSubordinate() when ru must necessarily not be a subordinate | |
| [13:12] <fwereade> niemeyer, yeah, that makes sense -- I was also pondering EnsureSubordinateState at one point, but that didn't seem quite clear either | |
| [13:13] <niemeyer> fwereade: To be honest, I think ru.CreateSubordinate would be best | |
| [13:13] <niemeyer> fwereade: Returning ErrSubordinateExists or ErrSubordinateInvalid | |
| [13:13] <fwereade> niemeyer, I was just about to suggest those :) | |
| [13:14] <niemeyer> fwereade: Hah, jinx then :) | |
| [13:14] <TheMue> niemeyer: Pong, just had to bring my daughter to her voluntary work. | |
| [13:14] <fwereade> niemeyer, that's great then -- grab me when you're done with TheMue then? | |
| [13:14] <niemeyer> TheMue: Nice.. does she work voluntarily on the voluntary work? :-) | |
| [13:15] <niemeyer> TheMue: I'll need some extra time to look over the logic on the branch actually | |
| [13:15] <fwereade> niemeyer, hah, when I was at school, there was an institution called "voluntary tea" on friday afternoons | |
| [13:15] <fwereade> niemeyer, no, it was not voluntary :/ | |
| [13:15] <niemeyer> TheMue: I'm just going over the firewaller change | |
| [13:15] <TheMue> niemeyer: Hehe, yes, it's for bridging the time until her education as occupational therapist. | |
| [13:16] <niemeyer> fwereade: Hehe, that's how it generally goes :-) | |
| [13:16] <TheMue> niemeyer: Ah, fine, has been a lot of discussion by fwereade and me in there. | |
| [13:17] * fwereade hopes he hasn't been leading TheMue up the garden path | |
| [13:31] <fwereade> niemeyer, a thought is squatting toadlike in my brain, and while I don't like it very much it will not leave peacefully | |
| [13:32] <fwereade> niemeyer, I don't think that CreateSubordinate actually deserves an independent existence -- it'd only ever be called just after EnterScope, and it depends on basically the same things... I can't think of a good reason not to roll CS into ES | |
| [13:32] <niemeyer> fwereade: Sounds good as well. | |
| [13:34] <fwereade> niemeyer, ok, great, I'll have a go at that -- and that then means the errors collapse back down to ErrCannotEnterScope, I think | |
| [13:35] <fwereade> niemeyer, it will also demand a RelationUnit.Subordinate method, I think, but I don't need that quite yet (in fact I will only want it for testing) | |
| [13:35] <fwereade> niemeyer, anyway I will try it out and let you know how it goes | |
| [13:36] <fwereade> niemeyer, oh: crack check: I shouldn't bother to check related service life state because, if the relation is alive, both its services must also be alive | |
| [13:38] <niemeyer> fwereade: Hmm.. good point | |
| [13:38] <fwereade> niemeyer, (and, yay, that is a statement of truth not just of intent) | |
| [13:38] <fwereade> niemeyer, cool, cheers | |
| [14:21] <fwereade> niemeyer, just in case, do you know if anyone knows what next spring's UDS dates will be? | |
| [14:21] <niemeyer> fwereade: Not yet.. have you checked the UDS website? | |
| [14:22] <fwereade> niemeyer, all it seems to have is copenhagen | |
| [14:23] <niemeyer> TheMue: Review sent | |
| [14:24] <TheMue> niemeyer: Great, thanks. | |
| [14:27] <niemeyer> TheMue: np, please let me know if it makes sense | |
| [14:28] <niemeyer> Heading to lunch now | |
| [14:29] <TheMue> niemeyer: Yes, first look is fine, just started to adopt it. For the approach we have to thank William and his steadiness. It has been a great help. | |
| [14:29] <TheMue> niemeyer: Enjoy your luch. | |
| [14:32] <fwereade> TheMue, a pleasure, thanks for your patience, I'm not sure I was always very clear :) | |
| [14:34] <TheMue> fwereade: It has been fine to tame this pretty nice beast, a good experience. | |
| [14:43] <mgz> is there a neat way to run a single live test? I'm failing at finding the right go test spelling. | |
| [14:47] <Aram> -gocheck.f <regexp> | |
| [14:47] <Aram> where regexp matches the test function name. | |
| [14:48] <Aram> mgz: ^ ^ | |
| [14:49] <mgz> ah, that was it, need to remember -gocheck not -test flags | |
| [14:49] <mgz> thanks Aram | |
| [14:49] <Aram> cheers. | |
| [14:54] <mgz> okay, fixing this bug the way I would like will be annoying | |
| [14:55] <mgz> ideally I'd write a way in the goamz fake server thing that reproduced this behaviour, so running the problematic live test failed in the correct manner, then fix the live test itself | |
| [14:56] <mgz> but that's two different projects and custom behaviour for a specific test... | |
| [15:12] <TheMue> So, AFK again. | |
| [15:40] <fwereade> niemeyer, rolled subordinate creation into EnterScope in https://codereview.appspot.com/6906046/ | |
| [15:41] <fwereade> niemeyer, (I also addressed your comments in https://codereview.appspot.com/6845120/ -- I would love it if you had a moment to take a look before you depart...) | |
| [15:41] <fwereade> TheMue, a second look at https://codereview.appspot.com/6906046/ would be appreciated: it's changed pretty significantly since you saw it last | |
| [15:46] <niemeyer> fwereade: Yo | |
| [15:47] <niemeyer> fwereade: Will look at both | |
| [15:47] <niemeyer> Now | |
| [15:48] <niemeyer> fwereade: "This'd be Unit.EnsureDead's job, but it doesn't do it." | |
| [15:48] <niemeyer> fwereade: Should we adapt comments in the respective places so they reflect what we want to happen then? | |
| [15:48] <fwereade> niemeyer, yeah, that's a good idea | |
| [15:49] <fwereade> niemeyer, I thought of that just after I submitted :/ | |
| [15:49] <niemeyer> fwereade: Super | |
| [15:49] <niemeyer> fwereade: "Nothing -- but it was a single-use method that I factored back into the single | |
| [15:49] <niemeyer> caller... and then forgot to delete." | |
| [15:49] <niemeyer> fwereade: So the method is now unused? | |
| [15:49] <fwereade> niemeyer, isn't it gone in that CL? | |
| [15:50] <fwereade> niemeyer, ah, yes, it is deleted now | |
| [15:50] <fwereade> niemeyer, yeah | |
| [15:51] <niemeyer> fwereade: Cool, sounds good then | |
| [15:52] <niemeyer> fwereade: I think there was some misunderstanding regarding the name | |
| [15:52] <niemeyer> fwereade: I was suggesting isAliveDoc for the bson.D document | |
| [15:52] <fwereade> niemeyer, oh, sorry? | |
| [15:52] <fwereade> niemeyer, ha! | |
| [15:52] <fwereade> sorry | |
| [15:52] <niemeyer> fwereade: np | |
| [15:54] <niemeyer> fwereade: and isDeadDoc, respectively | |
| [15:54] <fwereade> niemeyer, notDeadDoc I presume | |
| [15:54] <niemeyer> fwereade: Ugh, yes | |
| [15:54] <fwereade> niemeyer, sgtm | |
| [15:54] <niemeyer> fwereade: Nice to see how much simpler the logic is since we don't have to consider errors | |
| [15:55] <niemeyer> fwereade: I mean, we don't have to figure what happened to return the proper error | |
| [15:55] <fwereade> niemeyer, isn't it-- although EnterScope is some where near the edge my comfortable-complexity limit | |
| [15:55] <niemeyer> fwereade: Indeed, it's probably the most complex function we have in state ATM | |
| [15:56] <fwereade> niemeyer, at least I can't think of any others that'll be that bad | |
| [15:57] <niemeyer> fwereade: Agreed. And the logic is also readable, I think | |
| [15:57] <niemeyer> fwereade: Perhaps requiring some context, though | |
| [15:57] <fwereade> niemeyer, ah, I tried to do that :( | |
| [15:58] <niemeyer> fwereade: Should LeaveScope kill the subordinate unit? | |
| [15:58] <fwereade> niemeyer, nope, don't think so -- it has an independent existence and agent and its own shutdown sequence | |
| [15:59] <fwereade> niemeyer, setting the prinicpal to dying should do the same to its subordinates, and then we should just sit back and wait | |
| [15:59] <niemeyer> fwereade: Hmm.. | |
| [15:59] <niemeyer> fwereade: What kills the unit when the relation is departed then? | |
| [16:01] <fwereade> niemeyer, good point | |
| [16:01] <fwereade> niemeyer, I still don't think it's LeaveScope's job | |
| [16:02] <fwereade> niemeyer, I think if anything that a subordinate unit should also be watching for its relation's death | |
| [16:02] <fwereade> niemeyer, s/death/Dying/ | |
| [16:02] <fwereade> niemeyer, just as all units do with their services | |
| [16:02] <niemeyer> fwereade: Sounds sensible, but isn't LeaveScope precisely the final cue that the relation is gone? | |
| [16:03] <niemeyer> fwereade: Perhaps the action should take in the subordinate, though, rather than the principal | |
| [16:03] <niemeyer> s/take/be taken/ | |
| [16:04] <niemeyer> fwereade: Perhaps not.. if the relation is removed earlier the subordinate will never enter it | |
| [16:04] <fwereade> niemeyer, yeah, I'm still thinking it through | |
| [16:04] <fwereade> niemeyer, in general LeaveScope happens pretty late though | |
| [16:05] <fwereade> niemeyer, I think I'd like the subordinate agents to start clearing themselves up at the right point independently of what the principal does | |
| [16:05] <niemeyer> fwereade: Sure, but let's think about a worse case scenario | |
| [16:05] <niemeyer> fwereade: It's entirely possible that by the time the subordinate unit runs, the relation doesn't even exist anymore | |
| [16:05] <niemeyer> s/worse/worst/ | |
| [16:06] <niemeyer> fwereade: Right? | |
| [16:06] <niemeyer> fwereade: +1 on your last comment | |
| [16:06] <fwereade> niemeyer, yeah, you're right | |
| [16:08] <fwereade> niemeyer, this is a dependency I had not hitherto considered :/ | |
| [16:09] <niemeyer> fwereade: I think it's all good, though.. we just need specific logic in the subordinate unit agent that observes the right moment to suicide | |
| [16:10] <fwereade> niemeyer, yeah, indeed -- it's just that there's no very obvious way to be sure which relation the subordinate exists as a consequence of | |
| [16:11] <fwereade> niemeyer, I *think* the easiest way to handle that is to tag subordinate units with the relation ID they exist because of | |
| [16:11] <fwereade> niemeyer, but that has not been thought through with any rigour | |
| [16:11] <niemeyer> fwereade: Every subordinate unit has a principal field | |
| [16:12] <niemeyer> fwereade: Either there must be a relation with that unit, or its life is compromised | |
| [16:12] <niemeyer> A container relation, specifically | |
| [16:12] <fwereade> niemeyer, true -- so we *can* figure out the two services involved, and thereby figure out the relation, maybe-probably, because I am suspicious of what happens if that relation is discarded and recreated | |
| [16:13] <fwereade> niemeyer, IMO an additional field meaning "this unit's life is also contingent on that of this relation" feels like a more certain way to do it | |
| [16:13] <niemeyer> fwereade: That'd probably be a situation in which it'd be fine for the unit to stay around | |
| [16:14] <niemeyer> fwereade: That'd open the potential for other races, though | |
| [16:14] <niemeyer> fwereade: Such as having two subordinate units | |
| [16:14] <fwereade> niemeyer, *probably*, yeah, but it's the sort of chain of suppositions that I am suspicious of | |
| [16:14] <niemeyer> fwereade: For the same service | |
| [16:14] <fwereade> niemeyer, I don't *think* that can happen | |
| [16:15] <fwereade> niemeyer, but I am not willing to swear that there will be no surprising consequences | |
| [16:15] <fwereade> niemeyer, I would prefer to keep the chains of logic as short as possible | |
| [16:16] <niemeyer> fwereade: Sounds good, but I'm not sure of what you mean by that | |
| [16:17] <fwereade> niemeyer, principal -> principal's service -> figure out the relation | |
| [16:17] <fwereade> niemeyer, vs | |
| [16:17] <fwereade> niemeyer, relation | |
| [16:17] <fwereade> niemeyer, there are a lot more opportunities for bugs in the former | |
| [16:19] <fwereade> niemeyer, given two services we cannot necessarily uniquely determine the relation between them | |
| [16:19] <fwereade> niemeyer, but, ha, that's enough to sink my proposal | |
| [16:20] <fwereade> niemeyer, there's nothing stopping us having two distinct container relations between the same two services, is there? | |
| [16:20] <fwereade> niemeyer, not that that's a *nice* thing to do | |
| [16:20] <niemeyer> fwereade: Nope | |
| [16:20] <niemeyer> fwereade: I think it's a fine thing to do | |
| [16:21] <niemeyer> fwereade: For the same reason that it's fine to have more than one relation between arbitrary services | |
| [16:21] <fwereade> niemeyer, indeed so | |
| [16:21] <fwereade> niemeyer, ok, maybe you're right | |
| [16:21] <niemeyer> fwereade: Either way, I'm vaguely convinced that being able to ask whether two named units are part of a common relation must not be a hard question | |
| [16:22] <fwereade> niemeyer, if *any* Alive container relation exists between the subordinate's service and its principal, the subordinate should be Alive | |
| [16:22] <niemeyer> fwereade: Given that a uniter already maintains tight control of remote participant units on any given relation | |
| [16:22] <niemeyer> fwereade: That's right | |
| [16:22] <fwereade> niemeyer, I think that's a subtly different question | |
| [16:23] <niemeyer> fwereade: Ah, you're right, yes | |
| [16:23] <niemeyer> fwereade: It doesn't really matter whether the relation is established or not | |
| [16:23] <niemeyer> fwereade: It matters if it exists | |
| [16:23] <fwereade> niemeyer, yeah, exactly | |
| [16:24] <fwereade> niemeyer, but, still, I think it's less hard than I feared two minutes ago | |
| [16:25] <niemeyer> fwereade: Yeah, thinking in terms of a database query, it's "foo:.* bar:.*" || "bar:.* foo:.*" exist and is alive | |
| [16:25] <fwereade> niemeyer, (and, fwiw, this CL is very firmly focused on creation rather than removal -- subordinates we can't delete are suboptimal but (?) on par with python) | |
| [16:25] <niemeyer> exists | |
| [16:25] <fwereade> niemeyer, yep, exactly | |
| [16:25] <niemeyer> fwereade: I know.. it's approved already | |
| [16:25] <fwereade> niemeyer, ah, nice :) | |
| [16:25] * fwereade can be slow at times | |
| [16:25] <niemeyer> fwereade: I just raised the issue as a brainstorm for future steps | |
| [16:25] <fwereade> niemeyer, yeah, much appreciated | |
| [16:27] <fwereade> niemeyer, but we're agreed that it's not LeaveScope then? (the only bug I am aware of in LeaveScope is that it doesn't delete services when it needs to) | |
| [16:31] <niemeyer> fwereade: Yeah, agreed | |
| [16:32] <fwereade> niemeyer, perfect | |
| [16:51] <niemeyer> fwereade: next one is good to go too | |
| [16:54] <fwereade> niemeyer, sweet :D | |
| [16:57] <niemeyer> TheMue: https://codereview.appspot.com/6875053/ reviewed too | |
| [17:05] <fwereade> niemeyer, would you expand a little on "deploying agent" vs "deploying unit" -- my heart still favours the first | |
| [17:05] <fwereade> niemeyer, (I'm fine changing it, I'm just not sure why :)) | |
| [17:05] <niemeyer> fwereade: DeployUnit does significantly more than deploying an agent | |
| [17:05] <niemeyer> fwereade: An agent is jujud process running | |
| [17:05] <niemeyer> fwereade: DeployUnit can do whatever it pleases to put the agent to run | |
| [17:06] <fwereade> niemeyer, bingo, thanks | |
| [17:06] <niemeyer> fwereade: Including creating a container, downloading an image, running a container, etc | |
| [17:09] <TheMue> niemeyer: Thx for review. | |
| [17:19] <fwereade> niemeyer, ok, well, now that deployer's in, the how-to-merge-question comes up: I'm still not convincer that a MachinerWorker is a good reason to start a Deployer worker | |
| [17:19] <fwereade> niemeyer, it feels a bit off to me | |
| [17:19] <niemeyer> fwereade: So let's do the change we discussed the other day and have flags there instead | |
| [17:19] <fwereade> niemeyer, task-per-flag? <3 | |
| [17:20] <fwereade> niemeyer, upgrader I presume remains implicit? | |
| [17:20] <niemeyer> fwereade: Not task per flag.. flag per flag :).. the idea is precisely to avoid the 1-to-1 relationship between code and run mode | |
| [17:21] <niemeyer> fwereade: Flags can possibly change the way that code run, instead of adding a new task | |
| [17:22] <fwereade> niemeyer, ah, ok, I wasn't really quite expecting you to have changed your mind there | |
| [17:22] <niemeyer> fwereade: We had already gotten to that point in our last conversation IIRC | |
| [17:22] <fwereade> niemeyer, but the idea has not quite clicked with me, I'm afraid, and I'm a little nervous that I will do something completely unlike what you expect | |
| [17:23] <fwereade> niemeyer, yeah, but I did some independent thinking last weekend and accidentally dragged my comprehension of the problem back towards my initial viewpoint | |
| [17:23] <niemeyer> fwereade: Okay, so how does it stand now? | |
| [17:25] <fwereade> niemeyer, basically I've confused myself -- I ran with an Agent idea for a bit and I think it's nice but I can't really justify it yet :( | |
| [17:26] <fwereade> niemeyer, or, at least, I don't have the time or emotional fortitude necessary to convince you before you go on holiday even if I am right ;p | |
| [17:26] <niemeyer> fwereade: Hehe :) | |
| [17:26] <fwereade> niemeyer, and I am reluctant to sneak it past you while you're away | |
| [17:26] <fwereade> niemeyer, because I doubt you would appreciatethat too much ;)_ | |
| [17:26] <niemeyer> fwereade: So let's try to reach some quick agreement.. feel free to sneak it in as we go | |
| [17:27] <fwereade> niemeyer, haha | |
| [17:27] <niemeyer> fwereade: What we have now is a document in the database representing the machine | |
| [17:27] <niemeyer> fwereade: That document has a field with a few names that we map 1-to-1 to what we call workers, which are really packages under the worker directory which tend to do relevant and mostly independent tasks within an agent | |
| [17:28] <niemeyer> fwereade: agent being the name we give to a jujud process that we run to control stuff up in situations where one or more workers are necessary | |
| [17:28] <niemeyer> fwereade: So far so good? | |
| [17:28] <fwereade> niemeyer, yep | |
| [17:29] <niemeyer> fwereade: Cool.. so the discomfort we're sitting in happens because we rightfully renamed one of our workers to adapt the code | |
| [17:30] <fwereade> niemeyer, indeed | |
| [17:30] <niemeyer> fwereade: and the fact we have fields which are tied to code name rather than the intended semantics for the running logic means we're forced to swallow a mismatch, or fix it, or change the way we refer to that kind of semantics so that we avoid future mismatches | |
| [17:30] <niemeyer> fwereade: I'm suggesting the latter | |
| [17:30] <niemeyer> fwereade: and part of my motivation is that I think the 1-to-1 mapping between package name and semantics is too artificial to survive over time | |
| [17:31] <fwereade> niemeyer, ok -- I guess my own discomfort here is that I'm not clear on what the intended semantics are | |
| [17:31] <niemeyer> fwereade: Understood. That's easy to solve, I think. | |
| [17:31] <fwereade> niemeyer, you have stated the problem helpfully though | |
| [17:31] * fwereade is all ears | |
| [17:31] <niemeyer> fwereade: We have three different flags today: | |
| [17:32] <niemeyer> fwereade: Flag 1) "I want this agent to manage the firewall for the environment" | |
| [17:32] <niemeyer> fwereade: Flag 2) "I want this agent to manage the provisioning of machines for the environment" | |
| [17:32] <niemeyer> fwereade: Flag 2) "I want this agent to manage the hosting of units for that machine" | |
| [17:32] <niemeyer> s/2/3/ on the last, of course | |
| [17:33] <fwereade> niemeyer, right, yes, agreed | |
| [17:33] * niemeyer holds off a bit | |
| [17:34] <niemeyer> fwereade: Welcome back | |
| [17:35] <niemeyer> fwereade: So | |
| [17:35] <fwereade> grar, sorry | |
| [17:35] <niemeyer> LOL | |
| [17:35] <fwereade> sorry, that time the actual client crashed :/ | |
| [17:36] <niemeyer> fwereade: No worries | |
| [17:36] <niemeyer> fwereade: So! | |
| [17:36] <niemeyer> :) | |
| [17:36] <niemeyer> fwereade: We have these three stated semantics | |
| [17:36] * fwereade sits very still | |
| [17:36] <niemeyer> fwereade: My proposal was to find a way to name the intended semantics without actually referring to worker, or task | |
| [17:37] <niemeyer> fwereade: But rather as a property of the machine itself | |
| [17:37] <niemeyer> fwereade: and at the agent side, we map these flags to workers, tasks, or whatever we please | |
| [17:38] <fwereade> niemeyer, ok, that SGTM -- and that reduces the current problem to a naming question really, just a different one to that I had previously imagined | |
| [17:40] <niemeyer> fwereade: Cool.. so how do we name those flags? Hmmm | |
| [17:41] * fwereade is still a touch baffled by this question | |
| [17:41] <niemeyer> fwereade: Hm? | |
| [17:42] <niemeyer> fwereade: I'm baffled by your baffledness :-D | |
| [17:42] <fwereade> niemeyer, I don't know what we should name them | |
| [17:43] <fwereade> niemeyer, well, Firewaller and Provisioner are a bit too close to the worker names for comfort -- the implication is that flags *do* map onto workers | |
| [17:43] <fwereade> niemeyer, and I really don't like "machiner" | |
| [17:44] <niemeyer> fwereade: Strawman: HostProvisioner, HostFirewaller, HostUnits | |
| [17:45] <fwereade> niemeyer, ok, I think I can work with those :) | |
| [17:45] <niemeyer> fwereade: Although HostFirewaller is still not great | |
| [17:45] <niemeyer> fwereade: Because we'll likely have local firewall management soonish | |
| [17:45] <fwereade> niemeyer, I think the big issue there is ... exactly | |
| [17:46] <fwereade> niemeyer, I'm almost tempted to roll firewalling into provisioning again | |
| [17:46] <niemeyer> fwereade: ManageEnvironFirewall, ManageEnvironProvisioning, HostUnits | |
| [17:46] <fwereade> niemeyer, ie if HostProvisioner, we run both P and FW workers | |
| [17:47] <niemeyer> fwereade: Hmm | |
| [17:47] <niemeyer> fwereade: Interesting | |
| [17:47] <fwereade> niemeyer, or HostEnvironStuff ;p | |
| [17:47] <fwereade> niemeyer, (bad name, just saying I'm not attached ot the specific chars that make it up) | |
| [17:48] <niemeyer> fwereade: Sounds like a good idea.. there's no great reason to separate those | |
| [17:49] <fwereade> niemeyer, ok, fantastic -- that feels like enough to be going on with | |
| [17:50] <fwereade> niemeyer, I am being encouraged to be a monster, and I think I should be off | |
| [17:50] <fwereade> niemeyer, have a very happy christmas with much joy and adequate sleep -- see you in the new year, I expect :) | |
| [17:50] <niemeyer> fwereade: UnitsMachine and ControlMachine? | |
| [17:51] <fwereade> niemeyer, ...ambivalent, I will take those under consideration :) | |
| [17:51] <niemeyer> fwereade: With int flags, so we can tweak names over time as we see fit | |
| [17:51] <niemeyer> fwereade: Thanks a lot man :-) | |
| [17:51] <fwereade> niemeyer, ok, sounds sensible | |
| [17:51] <niemeyer> fwereade: Have a great break as wel | |
| [17:51] <niemeyer> l | |
| [17:51] <fwereade> niemeyer, always a pleasure, take care :) | |
| [17:52] <niemeyer> fwereade: Tell Laura there's a little friend coming | |
| [17:52] <niemeyer> fwereade: ;_) | |
| [17:52] <fwereade> niemeyer, will do :) | |
| [17:52] <niemeyer> fwereade: I'll just have to make an effort for them to be able to communicate :_0 | |
| [17:52] <niemeyer> :-) | |
| === TheMue_ is now known as TheMue | |