| === meetingology` is now known as meetingology | ||
| TheMue | morning | 06:51 |
|---|---|---|
| * davecheney waves | 06:53 | |
| davecheney | TheMue: https://codereview.appspot.com/6203083 | 06:53 |
| davecheney | coming along | 06:53 |
| davecheney | http://paste.ubuntu.com/998421/ | 06:54 |
| rogpeppe | TheMue, davecheney: yo! | 07:33 |
| TheMue | rogpeppe: Yo' man. | 07:33 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: looking good. one little question: is it possible to start a machine that's already been created? | 07:36 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: i mean, will we ever want to actually do that? | 07:36 |
| davecheney | rogpeppe: good question, curretly the start machine and create machine.loop are closely tied | 07:37 |
| davecheney | similarly when a stop is successful, the machine will regestier itself so i can't accept more messages | 07:38 |
| davecheney | *deregister | 07:38 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: if we *don't*', then i'm not sure there's a need for the "start" message - we can just start when the machine is created. | 07:38 |
| davecheney | rogpeppe: true, it's probably overengineered as it stands now | 07:38 |
| davecheney | i'm not doing any more work on it this evening | 07:38 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: and the loop becomes a single channel receive... | 07:39 |
| davecheney | i'm tyring to fix the tests on https://code.launchpad.net/~dave-cheney/juju/go-watch-machines-topology/+merge/106294 | 07:39 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: cool. | 07:39 |
| davecheney | rogpeppe: I also have to implement so kind of backoff logic in there | 07:42 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: yeah. | 07:42 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: that should be straightforward though - the goroutines mean no state machine is necessary, which should make the logic nice. | 07:42 |
| davecheney | <- time.After(5 *time.Seconds) would do in a pinch | 07:43 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: yeah. maybe add a touch of randomness too. | 07:44 |
| davecheney | rogpeppe: i'm thinking a sort of incresing backoff | 07:45 |
| davecheney | that you kind of hint by saying .Success() or .Failed() | 07:45 |
| davecheney | which increases or decreasese the delay | 07:45 |
| davecheney | so if things start to crap out, the delay between attempts grows | 07:45 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: if you want to factor out the backoff strategy, you might want to have a look at attemptStrategy in environs/ec2, as a possible API example | 07:45 |
| davecheney | rogpeppe: that sounds like exactly what I want | 07:46 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: it doesn't do exponential backoff | 07:46 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: but the API works nicely and was much discussed at the time | 07:46 |
| davecheney | all the better to reuse it then | 07:46 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: mind you, perhaps you never want to give up, in which case perhaps the API is overkill. | 07:48 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: BTW did you see, someone discovered my shell? :-) http://debu.gs/entries/inferno-part-1-shell | 07:51 |
| davecheney | \o/ hacker news | 07:51 |
| * rogpeppe never looks at hacker news. one stream too many. | 07:54 | |
| TheMue | rogpeppe: Any usage statistics for your shell? Download numbers? | 07:56 |
| rogpeppe | TheMue: absolutely no idea. probably in the low 20s :-) | 07:56 |
| davecheney | rogpeppe: i was going to say, it's probably not allowed to drink | 07:56 |
| rogpeppe | TheMue: noone uses it | 07:56 |
| TheMue | rogpeppe: Hehe, not even you? | 07:56 |
| davecheney | rogpeppe: do you know a guy called Chris Collins | 07:56 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: occasionally. | 07:56 |
| rogpeppe | drink? | 07:57 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: not that i can remember, why? | 07:57 |
| davecheney | he's a plan 9 fan here in AU | 07:57 |
| davecheney | he's also a hardware hoarder like you | 07:57 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: problem is inferno lives in a walled environment. it's great for dealing with stuff inside that environment, but not great if you want to interact with the host system | 07:58 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: i am *not* a h/w hoarder :-) | 07:58 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: i just have a NeXT! | 07:58 |
| davecheney | rogpeppe: can the watcher.ContentWatcher return "" ? | 07:59 |
| davecheney | ie, return spuriously | 07:59 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: it could return "" if the contents were "" | 07:59 |
| davecheney | what if ther were "" before | 08:00 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: and i think if there's an error, the channel will be closed | 08:00 |
| davecheney | the problem i'm having atm is the watcher fires once, but the contents don't change | 08:00 |
| davecheney | so it gets out of phase with what the test expects | 08:00 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: if the contents don't change, the watcher shouldn't fire | 08:00 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: is that what you want? | 08:00 |
| davecheney | let me check the channel isn't closing | 08:00 |
| davecheney | watcher channel closed | 08:01 |
| davecheney | watcher_test.go:275: | 08:01 |
| davecheney | sonovabitch | 08:01 |
| davecheney | ok, let me find out why | 08:01 |
| davecheney | btw, /usr/share/zookeeper/bin/zkCli.sh | 08:06 |
| davecheney | ^ i'm sure you guys know about his | 08:07 |
| davecheney | this | 08:07 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: it's really nasty. i wrote my own little cli for it. | 08:08 |
| davecheney | watcher channel closed: watcher: can't get content of node "/machines": zookeeper: existsw "/machines": zookeeper is closing | 08:08 |
| davecheney | urg | 08:09 |
| davecheney | rogpeppe: it is really nasty, you can't set a key that contains whitespace | 08:09 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: nice informative error message though :-) | 08:09 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: *really*!? | 08:09 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: omg that's not nice | 08:09 |
| davecheney | rogpeppe: really. | 08:09 |
| davecheney | rogpeppe: i ended up adding code into the provisionng agent to populate zk for me | 08:10 |
| davecheney | as a test | 08:10 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: oh, you mean the cli shell script | 08:10 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: i thought you meant zk proper | 08:10 |
| davecheney | rogpeppe: nah, just zkCli | 08:10 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: if you look at it, it's got so much abstraction in it it's not true. not worth using. | 08:11 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: definitely written by a jobsworth. | 08:11 |
| davecheney | rogpeppe: right, problem fixed, was watching the wrong key | 08:15 |
| davecheney | but now I have another problem | 08:15 |
| davecheney | ... obtained *state.MachinesChange = &state.MachinesChange{Added:[]*state.Machine{(*state.Machine)(0xf8400c9360)}, Deleted:[]*state.Machine(nil)} | 08:15 |
| davecheney | ... expected state.MachinesChange = state.MachinesChange{Added:[]*state.Machine{(*state.Machine)(0xf8400daf00)}, Deleted:[]*state.Machine(nil)} | 08:15 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: that's an easy one to fix | 08:15 |
| davecheney | *Machines don't define equility | 08:15 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: just expect the pointer type | 08:16 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: it's doing DeepEquals, right? | 08:16 |
| davecheney | mm | 08:16 |
| * davecheney reads the godoc for gocheck | 08:16 | |
| * TheMue moved his office to the veranda due to the beautiful weather today. | 08:25 | |
| rogpeppe | TheMue: the weather *should* be beautiful today, but the haar has come in. dull again. | 08:42 |
| TheMue | rogpeppe: We are to far away from coast for haar (about 50 to 80 km, depending on if the Jadebusen, a bay, is seen as coast too). So now it's sunny and warm. | 08:44 |
| TheMue | s/to far/too far/ | 08:44 |
| rogpeppe | TheMue: we had the first decent sunshine in ages yesterday. | 08:44 |
| TheMue | rogpeppe: Hehe, that's England. ;) But we're also not very spoiled by the sun here. | 08:46 |
| rogpeppe | TheMue: it has been *particularly* bad in the last month. | 08:46 |
| TheMue | rogpeppe: We had a short sunny interrupt in March, but in total the spring is too late this year. | 08:48 |
| rogpeppe | TheMue: same here. must be the same across most of northern europe, i'd guess | 08:48 |
| TheMue | rogpeppe: Yep | 08:48 |
| === TheMue_ is now known as TheMue | ||
| niemeyer | Hello jujuers! | 12:37 |
| TheMue | niemeyer: Heya | 12:40 |
| Aram | evening. | 13:25 |
| niemeyer | Aram: Heya | 13:28 |
| andrewsmedina | niemeyer: morning | 13:49 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: hiya | 13:58 |
| niemeyer | Hey guys | 14:00 |
| andrewsmedina | niemeyer: I sent the code for review | 14:02 |
| niemeyer | andrewsmedina: That's great, thank you | 14:02 |
| andrewsmedina | niemeyer: :D | 14:02 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: ping | 14:07 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: pung | 14:07 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Yo | 14:07 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Just wondering what's the status of your branches | 14:08 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: how's tricks? | 14:08 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: You've mentioned you had a pre-req that was being merged in | 14:08 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: yeah, you LGTM'd that and i submitted on friday. | 14:08 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Is the branch named trunk (!?) ready for review? | 14:08 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Right, but did you repush the follow up? | 14:08 |
| niemeyer | s/repush/re-proposed/ | 14:08 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: ahem, forgot to branch -m that one | 14:08 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: i *think* that was an orthogonal branch. let me check. | 14:08 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Ok, just want to make sure I'm not reviewing something you don't want me to | 14:09 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: yes, i'd love a review of that on if poss. | 14:09 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Sounds good, starting right away | 14:10 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: if i was able, i'd rename the branch "go-environs-simplify-provider-interface" | 14:10 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Cool, no worries | 14:10 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: i think you'll like it BTW | 14:10 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Sweet | 14:11 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: As an unrelated note that I just reminded, I pushed a goamz branch over the weekend to improve and fix s3 a bit | 14:12 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: I gave a try at using it for dreamhost's Objects service.. works! | 14:12 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: yeah, i'm intending to look at it. sorry about the breakage BTW! | 14:12 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: I mean, with the branch.. | 14:12 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: No worries.. I think we all just have to be more diligent at running tests pre-submit | 14:12 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: maybe lbox submit's auto-merge functionality is really unnecessary, 'cos you should merge and test before submitting anyway | 14:13 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Turns out it's quite boring to do that by hand all the time | 14:15 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: yeah, i guess. | 14:15 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: I know for sure.. been there :) | 14:16 |
| niemeyer | (for years!) | 14:16 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: but it certainly makes it easier to submit broken code... | 14:16 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: It makes it easier to submit any code.. broken or not | 14:16 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Making that process more painful isn't a great way to solve the issue | 14:16 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: case: i merge, test, someone else submits a change to an API i'm using, i submit, lbox auto-merges => broken build. | 14:18 |
| TheMue | niemeyer: Any chance to take a look at https://codereview.appspot.com/6200044/ ? | 14:18 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: the gap between me testing and me submitting can be arbitrarily short | 14:18 |
| niemeyer | TheMue: There are great chances, yeah :) | 14:18 |
| niemeyer | TheMue: I've been reviewing the queue regularly | 14:18 |
| niemeyer | TheMue: So if it's in the active branches list, it will get reviewed | 14:19 |
| TheMue | niemeyer: Just wondered, because you already reviewed a follow-up. | 14:19 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Sure, that's a problem.. let's fix it. We can do that without making our lives more painful. | 14:20 |
| TheMue | niemeyer: Right now I've finished Add…Relation() with tests as a next branch. | 14:20 |
| niemeyer | TheMue: Yeah, as I said, I've been reviewing regularly | 14:20 |
| niemeyer | TheMue: Every day | 14:20 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: is there a way to fix it without getting lbox to run the tests itself? | 14:20 |
| niemeyer | TheMue: I've also been ordering reviews by branch size | 14:20 |
| niemeyer | TheMue: If you want faster turn arounds, smaller branches will win | 14:20 |
| TheMue | niemeyer: OK | 14:21 |
| rogpeppe | i was thinking that branch size should be judged by bzr diff | grep '^>' | wc -l | 14:21 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Branch sizes is ordered by diff size | 14:21 |
| rogpeppe | otherwise we get penalised for many small changes, and also for deleting code | 14:21 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: https://code.launchpad.net/juju/+activereviews shows the number of lines | 14:21 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Eventually we can have that.. we'll have to write logic that checks out branches, analyzes them, and builds a list in our preferred fashion | 14:23 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Meanwhile, Launchpad has that nice column :-) | 14:23 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Very nice indeed | 14:56 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: cool, thanks | 14:56 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Some trivial suggestions only | 14:56 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: am just currently doing the awkward merge between that branch and the one submitted on friday | 14:56 |
| niemeyer | TheMue: Ah, I've already reviewed most of that branch on Friday, btw | 14:58 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: i'm a bit surprised that goyaml conventions for naming are different from json and xml | 14:58 |
| niemeyer | TheMue: I've purposefully not submitted the review because I wanted to look through it again after the weekend | 14:58 |
| niemeyer | TheMue: You've (silently?) refactored significantly the way Python stored information about the endpoints, and I want to see that again with a fresh mind today | 14:59 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: that case changing stuff was deliberately removed from them to make the mapping clearer, i think. | 14:59 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: i'll remove the tags anyway though | 14:59 |
| TheMue | niemeyer: Yes, that's a result of the discussion between William and me during UDS. | 14:59 |
| niemeyer | TheMue: Ok, this is a major change, though | 15:00 |
| niemeyer | TheMue: It shouldn't be submitted silently, without even a note in the description | 15:00 |
| niemeyer | TheMue: I'm still thinking through it. At this point just saying I'd appreciate a note next time. | 15:01 |
| TheMue | niemeyer: OK, will handle it more carefully next time. | 15:01 |
| niemeyer | TheMue: Thanks | 15:01 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: xml had stuff that was a *lot* more magical | 15:01 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: json too, IIRC | 15:02 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: still, i do like the "no magic at all" approach | 15:02 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: it makes the code more transparent. | 15:02 |
| rogpeppe | IMHO | 15:02 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: There's no magic in goyaml.. it's the lowercased name. | 15:02 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: If it doesn't match, it doesn't | 15:02 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: does that mean you can't marshal to an Uppercased name ? | 15:02 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: That no | 15:03 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Erm | 15:03 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: No | 15:03 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: so it applies in one direction but not the other? | 15:03 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: If you want that, you need to use a tag | 15:03 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: It makes sense (to me, anyway) because most yaml is lowercase | 15:04 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: i'll remove the tags, but let me lodge an objection for the future. it's nice if marshalling packages are consistent like this. | 15:04 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Same thing with mgo | 15:04 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: MongoDB is massively lowercase | 15:04 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: So goyaml and bson are consistent ;) | 15:04 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: i think having a non-bijective transformation is asking for trouble | 15:04 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Not sure about what you mean. I've just said it's bijective. | 15:05 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: The marshaling name is the lowercased field name. | 15:05 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: ah. so i *can't* marshal to an upper-cased name? | 15:06 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: You have to use a tag name. | 15:06 |
| niemeyer | Erm.. s/name// | 15:06 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: i see. | 15:06 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: sorry, i misunderstood | 15:06 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: that's not too bad, i guess. | 15:06 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Yeah, that's how I feel too. | 15:07 |
| niemeyer | Anyway, lunch time | 15:07 |
| niemeyer | Back in a bit | 15:07 |
| niemeyer | TheMue: Will cover your branch first thing in the afternoon | 15:07 |
| TheMue | niemeyer: Thx a lot | 15:08 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: not sure about "LoadConfig" as a name. how about NewConfig ? | 15:16 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: +1 | 15:29 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: cool, done already :-) | 15:29 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: you might want to have a brief once-over of environs/interface.go before i submit, as i didn't quite use the comment text you suggested. | 15:47 |
| rogpeppe | lunch | 15:55 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Looking again. | 16:09 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Replied | 16:14 |
| === Guest___ is now known as smaddock | ||
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: thanks. actually i think it can be simpler still: // Every provider must accept the "name" and "type" attributes, the environment name and provider type. | 16:18 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: That's misleading. It's not A and B, C and D. | 16:19 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: If you're happy with the suggestion, can we please go with it? | 16:19 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: i'm not keen on the "with" in your suggestion. am trying to think of a better phrasing. | 16:20 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Alright, please use whatever you fancy then | 16:20 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: If "with" is unacceptable I can't really improve on it | 16:20 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: it reads oddly, sorry, i can't quite say why. | 16:21 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: how about "Every provider must accept the name of the environment ("name") and the environment type ("type")." | 16:21 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Sucks | 16:21 |
| rogpeppe | hrm | 16:22 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: what about s/with/holding/ | 16:22 |
| rogpeppe | ? | 16:22 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: "provide the foo argument with the key" is extremely usual | 16:22 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: holding is equally usual | 16:23 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: (which means, I'm fine with it too) | 16:23 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: cool, i'll go with that, and ponder why my "awkward-english" alarm went off for "with" :-) | 16:24 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Please let me know if you find out | 16:24 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: and thanks | 16:24 |
| TheMue | So, off for the moment. Next branch is in. | 16:24 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: something to do with the fact there are two keys, i think. | 16:25 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: but can't pin it down more than that... | 16:25 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Doesn't parse as related in my head | 16:26 |
| niemeyer | or, as Kevin would say, in my "heeeed" | 16:26 |
| rogpeppe | :-) | 16:26 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: in the end, i'm not really sure how "holding" is better than "giving", but i'm going with it anyway. | 16:29 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: It doesn't *give* anything to anyone.. it contains, and is. | 16:29 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: one use of the word "give" is "to impart or communicate" | 16:31 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: which is how i was using it. | 16:32 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Try to put "communicates" or "imparts" there.. | 16:32 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: It's bad too. | 16:32 |
| rogpeppe | / Every provider must accept the "name" and "type" attributes, communicating the environment name and provider type respectively. | 16:32 |
| rogpeppe | seems to work ok to me. | 16:33 |
| rogpeppe | apart from the length of "communicate" :-) | 16:33 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Still sounds bad to me. But we don't have to agree on that. | 16:33 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: it's fine. i'll try to avoid it in the future... | 16:33 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Thakns | 16:34 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: submitted. thanks a lot for the review. | 16:40 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: np | 16:44 |
| niemeyer | robbiew: Do you know if we'll have that meeting in 7 mins? | 16:53 |
| robbiew | no clue...I can't make it due to a conflict though | 16:53 |
| robbiew | niemeyer: it looks like a lot of folks declined, so perhaps not | 16:53 |
| niemeyer | robbiew: There are 20 people in that call.. it seems likely that lots of folks will decline :) | 16:54 |
| robbiew | lol | 16:54 |
| robbiew | good point | 16:54 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: micro branch for review: https://codereview.appspot.com/6219054 | 16:56 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Neat, LGTM | 16:56 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: thanks | 16:56 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: yay, fastest turnaround ever! | 16:57 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Small branches FTW! :-) | 16:57 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: a larger branch for review: https://codereview.appspot.com/6198064 | 17:40 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Cheers | 17:40 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: though it's not nearly as large as it appears. | 17:40 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: i'm off for the day. see you tomorrow! | 17:41 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Have a good one | 17:41 |
| niemeyer | Stepping out for a while | 22:04 |
| andrewsmedina | gt | 23:06 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!