| teknico | NOTICE: about to make a release | 12:21 |
|---|---|---|
| benji | yow, it's a little cooler this morning than I expected, -7C | 12:55 |
| teknico | will someone else check that the release candidate tarball on staging is fit for final release? thanks https://staging.launchpad.net/juju-gui/stable/0.2.0/+download/juju-gui-0.2.0.tgz | 13:34 |
| benji | teknico: I'll be glad to look, although I'm not entirely sure what all should be checked | 13:35 |
| teknico | benji, thanks, there are some suggestions in the release checklist, in docs/process.rst | 13:36 |
| benji | cool, I'll look at those | 13:37 |
| teknico | frankban, how do I "juju deploy" from staging? | 13:37 |
| benji | teknico: the release looks good. The tests pass and I started the app and poked around in it for a while and everything worked as expected and no JS errors were generated | 13:44 |
| teknico | benji, great, thanks | 13:45 |
| benji | my pleasure | 13:45 |
| frankban | teknico: you can't. You may want to make and upload a trunk release and then test it before uploading the stable one, e.g.: "juju-gui-source: trunk" in the config file. you can also run the charm tests against trunk setting the env var JUJU_GUI_SOURCE: JUJU_GUI_SOURCE=trunk jutsu test... | 13:47 |
| benji | frankban: speaking of the charm, I haven't been able to use the juju-gui-source setting to get the charm to run against a different release; is it supposed to work and how am I supposed to use it? (I have been doing a "juju set" just after deploying the service.) | 13:59 |
| frankban | benji: it should work | 13:59 |
| benji | ok, I'll try again and see if I can track down what is going wrong; I assume the "juju set" bit is the right way to do it, correct? | 14:00 |
| frankban | benji: something like "juju set juju-gui juju-gui-source=0.1.4 | 14:01 |
| benji | frankban: oh, I thought you could give it a branch URL | 14:02 |
| frankban | benji: otherwise you can pass a customized config.yaml to deploy --config | 14:02 |
| frankban | benji: yes, that too, e.g. juju-gui-source=lp:juju-gui | 14:02 |
| benji | cool; I'll try harder then ;) | 14:03 |
| frankban | benji: it is considered a branch if it starts with "lp:" or "http://" | 14:04 |
| benji | oh, so no "bzr:"? That is probably where I was going wrong. | 14:04 |
| frankban | benji: precisely, we should add the "bzr:" scheme too, it's quite easy, feel free to create a card if you want to | 14:06 |
| benji | frankban: will do | 14:06 |
| frankban | benji: cool thanks | 14:06 |
| teknico | benji, while you're at it, maybe add to the card the possibility to deploy from staging :-) | 14:08 |
| benji | teknico: sure :) | 14:08 |
| benji | frankban: https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-gui/+bug/1112529 | 14:09 |
| _mup_ | Bug #1112529: Support "bzr:" scheme in juju-gui-source charm setting. <juju-gui:New> < https://launchpad.net/bugs/1112529 > | 14:09 |
| benji | teknico: https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-gui/+bug/1112530 | 14:09 |
| _mup_ | Bug #1112530: Support deploying the GUI charm from LP staging <juju-gui:New> < https://launchpad.net/bugs/1112530 > | 14:09 |
| frankban | thank you! | 14:09 |
| teknico | benji, thanks | 14:11 |
| benji | np | 14:11 |
| frankban | guihelp: I wonder how, now that the charm is in the store, we are supposed to re-propose new changes | 14:16 |
| frankban | teknico: done? | 14:21 |
| teknico | frankban, what? | 14:21 |
| frankban | teknico: the release | 14:21 |
| teknico | frankban, nope, still upoading | 14:21 |
| teknico | or something :-) | 14:21 |
| hazmat | frankban, merge proposal .. with approval by charmers | 14:23 |
| teknico | frankban, but I think there's no need to wait landing branches now | 14:24 |
| hazmat | frankban, so ideally if there's a round of dev on it, we'd do it with our normal process against the team branch, and then propose to the official charmers version | 14:24 |
| frankban | hazmat: so, we might want to collect some changes before re-proposing | 14:25 |
| hazmat | frankban, yes | 14:25 |
| frankban | hazmat: cool, thanks | 14:25 |
| hazmat | frankban, technically the distinction isn't in the store but the owner in the store. | 14:25 |
| hazmat | np | 14:25 |
| teknico | frankban, finished, https://launchpad.net/juju-gui/+milestone/0.2.0 | 14:26 |
| frankban | teknico: great! | 14:27 |
| hazmat | frankban, its about 2-5 days for a charmers review.. this their queue http://jujucharms.com/review-queue | 14:27 |
| frankban | hazmat: ack. so, I'd suggest, e.g. when testing the GUI (deployments, new releases, etc.), to always use the latest version of our charm, i.e. most of the times, the one owned by juju-gui. what do you think? | 14:36 |
| hazmat | frankban, sounds sensible, but socially we want to continue distill/promote to charmers (aka the official charm) | 14:48 |
| frankban | hazmat: of course. agreed | 14:48 |
| frankban | teknico: the release tarball seems broken :-( . http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/1597149/ | 15:02 |
| teknico | what?!? | 15:03 |
| frankban | teknico: I am downloading the tarball, I will try to uncompress it manually. | 15:04 |
| teknico | frankban, me too, the local copy is correct | 15:05 |
| teknico | the size is wrong, and the content is junk :-( | 15:07 |
| frankban | teknico: I confirm the uploaded tarball is broken. please remove the release | 15:07 |
| teknico | frankban, done, I'll upload again | 15:08 |
| teknico | guihelp: the release tarball on staging is correct. Is there a way to upload that copy to production, rather than the one I have locally? | 15:11 |
| frankban | teknico: I don't know and I guess no. however, why do you want to do that? I suggest to try the release process again, it could be nice to find what's wrong. Is there a final tarball (downloaded from launchpad) qa step? if not, we should add it. | 15:15 |
| hazmat | teknico, define production? | 15:15 |
| teknico | hazmat, I meant stable | 15:16 |
| teknico | frankban, I'd like to do that because it would be easier and faster. The release process has went well up to generating the tarball: as I said, the local one is correct. I am uploading it again. | 15:17 |
| hazmat | teknico, i don't know, effectively your asking can we can copy tarballs in launchpad to replace a broken one? | 15:18 |
| teknico | frankban, you can find the release checklist in docs/process.rst. There are a number of qa steps, I'll add one more. | 15:18 |
| hazmat | teknico, that seems best.. if the tarball is entirely broken.. replacing/updating seems okay.. | 15:18 |
| teknico | hazmat, I deleted the broken one already | 15:19 |
| teknico | hazmat, I'm asking if we can do a lp-to-lp copy in place of a standard upload, as a matter of convenience | 15:19 |
| frankban | teknico: thanks, I believe that checking that everything is ok with the tarball at the end of the process is without doubt a good idea ;-) | 15:19 |
| teknico | frankban, I guess we hadn't yet had problems with the final uploading step | 15:20 |
| teknico | I'm still mistified how this could happen | 15:21 |
| hazmat | teknico, not that i know | 15:21 |
| teknico | how do you end up with 34MB of garbage after having uploaded a 25MB tarball? | 15:21 |
| frankban | teknico: try to restart your router ;-) | 15:22 |
| teknico | frankban, I'll see if they can restart the internet | 15:22 |
| benji | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDbyYGrswtg | 15:25 |
| teknico | broken again :-( | 15:25 |
| teknico | this is even weirder though: | 15:25 |
| teknico | the gpg signature on lp is correct, while the file is not | 15:26 |
| benji | the Elders of the Internet want us to have a standup in 3 minutes | 15:27 |
| teknico | I guess the upload_release.py script uploads the .asc signature file too | 15:27 |
| goodspud | Hey all. Are we having our daily stand up today? | 15:30 |
| * frankban connecting to the Internet for the daily call | 15:30 | |
| teknico | deleted again :-/ | 15:30 |
| hazmat | is ther a standup? | 15:34 |
| hazmat | looks like | 15:34 |
| bac | teknico: at least len(juju) < len(ensemble) | 15:44 |
| teknico | bac, that's true :-) | 15:44 |
| hazmat | :-) | 15:52 |
| hazmat | bcsaller, we're really short on pyjuju reviewers.. if you have a moment would you mind having a look at https://codereview.appspot.com/7241062/ | 16:04 |
| bcsaller | hazmat: yeah, just proposed my branch so I can look at that one now | 16:04 |
| hazmat | bcsaller, thanks, its thankfully pretty small | 16:04 |
| hazmat | a one liner and a drive by | 16:05 |
| benji | teknico: a small branch you might review: https://codereview.appspot.com/7231077 | 16:07 |
| teknico | benji, looking | 16:09 |
| teknico | benji, there's a conflict in the lp diff, and Rietveld says "error: old chunk mismatch" on docs/process.rst | 16:10 |
| benji | darn; let me look | 16:10 |
| benji | teknico: fixed: https://codereview.appspot.com/7231077 | 16:14 |
| teknico | benji, looking | 16:15 |
| teknico | benji, I uploaded the release tarball to U1 (and downloaded it to check, successfully) | 16:15 |
| teknico | benji, I shared a folder with you, you should have an email | 16:15 |
| teknico | benji, in the folder you'll find the tarball and the .asc signature file | 16:15 |
| benji | teknico: cool. I suppose that I should pick up the release instructions just after the bit about making sure the release works, right? | 16:16 |
| teknico | benji, yes, you should put both of them in a releases/ directory in a juju-gui branch | 16:16 |
| benji | k | 16:16 |
| teknico | benji, well, the release checklist says to run "FINAL=1 PROD=1 make dist" | 16:17 |
| teknico | benji, that also tries to build the tarball | 16:17 |
| teknico | benji, you only need to run the last step: "python2 upload_release.py juju-gui stable 0.2.0 releases/juju-gui-0.2.0.tgz" | 16:17 |
| benji | sounds good | 16:18 |
| teknico | benji, however, I don't know where the upload_release.py script comes from :-) | 16:18 |
| teknico | it appears in the branch dir during the release process | 16:18 |
| teknico | like, it's magic ;-) | 16:18 |
| benji | I can work that magic. | 16:18 |
| teknico | that's good :-) | 16:19 |
| teknico | benji, do you have time for a quick hangout? | 16:31 |
| benji | teknico: sure; is juju-ui free? | 16:31 |
| teknico | let's see | 16:31 |
| benji | it is | 16:31 |
| Makyo | James is home sick, I'm going to duck out to a coffeeshop. Hopefully less awful coughing there. | 16:50 |
| benji | teknico: https://codereview.appspot.com/7231077 | 16:52 |
| teknico | benji, looking | 16:59 |
| benji | k | 16:59 |
| frankban | so, you think you love JavaScript? http://dmitry.baranovskiy.com/post/91403200 | 17:09 |
| teknico | guihelp: I cannot find the standard review markers we decided upon ("Land as is", "Land with changes" and so on), where are they? | 17:13 |
| Makyo | teknico, I don't know if we wrote those down anywhere. It's those two and "request re-review", as far as I know. Any suggestions on where we should put them? Docs, maybe? | 17:14 |
| hazmat | process.rst would do the trick | 17:14 |
| teknico | that's where they are! | 17:15 |
| teknico | silly me, I was reviewing exactly that file :-D | 17:15 |
| Makyo | Oh! Well, there you go :) | 17:15 |
| teknico | it must be friday afternoon ;-) | 17:15 |
| teknico | benji, I'm sorry, one more iteration needed :-) | 17:17 |
| benji | heh, no worries | 17:17 |
| benji | comments in the review? | 17:17 |
| teknico | benji, yep | 17:18 |
| benji | cool | 17:18 |
| bcsaller | Makyo: can I ask what you found to be at the core of the dragging issue? | 17:27 |
| benji | teknico: once more, with feeling! https://codereview.appspot.com/7231077 | 17:27 |
| teknico | benji, allegretto con brio! | 17:28 |
| Makyo | bcsaller, When things were updated, the datum associated with each service didn't equal the datum passed in as 'd' to drag. When setting the translateStr in selection.attr('transform', function(d) { return d.translateStr(); }), we were also overloading the 'd' variable. Changing it to function(datum) and still using 'd' fixed that. | 17:29 |
| benji | :) | 17:29 |
| bcsaller | ahh | 17:29 |
| Makyo | bcsaller, Additionally, the service in the relations was being matched on modelId, but the relations objects were stale, so relation lines weren't updating properly either. | 17:30 |
| Makyo | ...relations which used to be 'relPairs', to clarify. | 17:31 |
| teknico | benji, done | 17:32 |
| teknico | I guess we need to come up with some joke like: "What do you call two perfectionists one-upping each other? ..." | 17:32 |
| teknico | missing the closing part though :-) | 17:33 |
| benji | teknico: I have a good punchline but if I tell you, you will come up with a better one. | 17:36 |
| teknico | benji, true, but someone's got to give in sooner or later :-) | 17:37 |
| teknico | benji, btw, any luck with the release upload? | 17:37 |
| benji | teknico: I got the file, but other than that I have been distracted by the QA bits. I'm looking at it now. | 17:38 |
| teknico | benji, out of curiosity, what upload bandwidth do you have available? | 17:39 |
| benji | teknico: 5 megabit | 17:39 |
| teknico | upload?!? oh wow. oh wow. | 17:39 |
| benji | my link is hilariously asymmetrical: 100 down, 5 up | 17:40 |
| teknico | well, around here it can be 20 (nominal) down, .3 up, so... | 17:41 |
| teknico | more than .5 up is almost unheard of | 17:41 |
| teknico | that is 0.3 and 0.5 resp., to be clear | 17:41 |
| benji | yeah, that's common here too; one of the big reasons to buy this particular house was that a good connection was available | 17:42 |
| bac | https://files.one.ubuntu.com/sEhlVl2GRu28wl3nHw2rhw | 17:42 |
| bac | bcsaller: can you see that link? | 17:42 |
| bcsaller | bac: after SSO it gives me an error | 17:43 |
| bac | doh | 17:43 |
| * Makyo discovers lack of charger in laptop back. Back home | 17:44 | |
| benji | Makyo: when you walk into the house start yelling "Unclean. Unclean!" at the top of your lungs | 17:45 |
| bac | bcsaller: was trying to show you the screenshot for bug 1112717 | 17:47 |
| * bac needs to figure out ubuntu one share settings | 17:47 | |
| bcsaller | bac: its on the bug itself, right? | 17:48 |
| bcsaller | I can see it there | 17:48 |
| bac | bcsaller: yep | 17:48 |
| bac | just another amusing/hair pulling bug | 17:48 |
| bcsaller | thats great :-/ | 17:49 |
| bac | bcsaller: if you can think of things you think may be broken let me know and i'll try them | 17:49 |
| bac | so far it is fish in a barrel | 17:49 |
| bcsaller | bac: I find that surprising as is, at this point I'd assume it mostly doesn't work. Anything with a transform attr on it is suspect it sounds like | 17:50 |
| bac | bcsaller: do you think the exercise is pointless atm? | 17:51 |
| bac | i.e., is there a class of problem that may be solved in one way so there's no need to identify them all? | 17:51 |
| bcsaller | bac: no, generating a list of things that don't work is fine, but I don't think you need to find them all, just calsses of errors | 17:51 |
| bcsaller | classes | 17:51 |
| bcsaller | sounds like the same thinking | 17:52 |
| bac | calluses of errors | 17:52 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!