[12:21] <teknico> NOTICE: about to make a release
[12:55] <benji> yow, it's a little cooler this morning than I expected, -7C
[13:34] <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
[13:35] <benji> teknico: I'll be glad to look, although I'm not entirely sure what all should be checked
[13:36] <teknico> benji, thanks, there are some suggestions in the release checklist, in docs/process.rst
[13:37] <benji> cool, I'll look at those
[13:37] <teknico> frankban, how do I "juju deploy" from staging?
[13:44] <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
[13:45] <teknico> benji, great, thanks
[13:45] <benji> my pleasure
[13:47] <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...
[13:59] <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
[14:00] <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?
[14:01] <frankban> benji: something like "juju set juju-gui juju-gui-source=0.1.4
[14:02] <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
[14:03] <benji> cool; I'll try harder then ;)
[14:04] <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.
[14:06] <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
[14:08] <teknico> benji, while you're at it, maybe add to the card the possibility to deploy from staging :-)
[14:08] <benji> teknico: sure :)
[14:09] <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!
[14:11] <teknico> benji, thanks
[14:11] <benji> np
[14:16] <frankban> guihelp:  I wonder how, now that the charm is in the store, we are supposed to re-propose new changes
[14:21] <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 :-)
[14:23] <hazmat> frankban, merge proposal .. with approval by charmers
[14:24] <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
[14:25] <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
[14:26] <teknico> frankban, finished, https://launchpad.net/juju-gui/+milestone/0.2.0
[14:27] <frankban> teknico: great!
[14:27] <hazmat> frankban, its about 2-5 days for a  charmers review.. this their queue http://jujucharms.com/review-queue
[14:36] <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?
[14:48] <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
[15:02] <frankban> teknico: the release tarball seems broken :-( . http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/1597149/
[15:03] <teknico> what?!?
[15:04] <frankban> teknico: I am downloading the tarball, I will try to uncompress it manually.
[15:05] <teknico> frankban, me too, the local copy is correct
[15:07] <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
[15:08] <teknico> frankban, done, I'll upload again
[15:11] <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?
[15:15] <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?
[15:16] <teknico> hazmat, I meant stable
[15:17] <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.
[15:18] <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.. 
[15:19] <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 ;-)
[15:20] <teknico> frankban, I guess we hadn't yet had problems with the final uploading step
[15:21] <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?
[15:22] <frankban> teknico: try to restart your router ;-)
[15:22] <teknico> frankban, I'll see if they can restart the internet
[15:25] <benji> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDbyYGrswtg
[15:25] <teknico> broken again :-(
[15:25] <teknico> this is even weirder though:
[15:26] <teknico> the gpg signature on lp is correct, while the file is not
[15:27] <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
[15:30] <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 :-/
[15:34] <hazmat> is ther a standup?
[15:34] <hazmat> looks like
[15:44] <bac> teknico: at least len(juju) < len(ensemble)
[15:44] <teknico> bac, that's true :-)
[15:52] <hazmat> :-)
[16:04] <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
[16:05] <hazmat> a one liner and a drive by
[16:07] <benji> teknico: a small branch you might review: https://codereview.appspot.com/7231077
[16:09] <teknico> benji, looking
[16:10] <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
[16:14] <benji> teknico: fixed: https://codereview.appspot.com/7231077
[16:15] <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
[16:16] <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
[16:17] <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"
[16:18] <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.
[16:19] <teknico> that's good :-)
[16:31] <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
[16:50] <Makyo> James is home sick, I'm going to duck out to a coffeeshop.  Hopefully less awful coughing there.
[16:52] <benji> teknico: https://codereview.appspot.com/7231077
[16:59] <teknico> benji, looking
[16:59] <benji> k
[17:09] <frankban> so, you think you love JavaScript? http://dmitry.baranovskiy.com/post/91403200
[17:13] <teknico> guihelp: I cannot find the standard review markers we decided upon ("Land as is", "Land with changes" and so on), where are they?
[17:14] <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
[17:15] <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 ;-)
[17:17] <teknico> benji, I'm sorry, one more iteration needed :-)
[17:17] <benji> heh, no worries
[17:17] <benji> comments in the review?
[17:18] <teknico> benji, yep
[17:18] <benji> cool
[17:27] <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
[17:28] <teknico> benji, allegretto con brio!
[17:29] <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
[17:30] <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.
[17:31] <Makyo> ...relations which used to be 'relPairs', to clarify.
[17:32] <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? ..."
[17:33] <teknico> missing the closing part though :-)
[17:36] <benji> teknico: I have a good punchline but if I tell you, you will come up with a better one.
[17:37] <teknico> benji, true, but someone's got to give in sooner or later :-)
[17:37] <teknico> benji, btw, any luck with the release upload?
[17:38] <benji> teknico: I got the file, but other than that I have been distracted by the QA bits.  I'm looking at it now.
[17:39] <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.
[17:40] <benji> my link is hilariously asymmetrical: 100 down, 5 up
[17:41] <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
[17:42] <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?
[17:43] <bcsaller> bac: after SSO it gives me an error
[17:43] <bac> doh
[17:44]  * Makyo discovers lack of charger in laptop back.  Back home
[17:45] <benji> Makyo: when you walk into the house start yelling "Unclean. Unclean!" at the top of your lungs
[17:47] <bac> bcsaller: was trying to show you the screenshot for bug 1112717
[17:47]  * bac needs to figure out ubuntu one share settings
[17:48] <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
[17:49] <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
[17:50] <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
[17:51] <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
[17:52] <bcsaller> sounds like the same thinking
[17:52] <bac> calluses of errors