[09:52] <jtv> rvba, if you want to see my workaround for the BooleanField problem: https://code.launchpad.net/~jtv/maas/bug-1374388/+merge/236291
[09:52] <rvba> jtv: okay, I'll review this right now.
[09:55] <jtv> Thanks.
[10:01] <jtv> rvba: I'm just pushing some improvements to the comment that explains it all.
[10:02] <rvba> jtv: just approved the branch but I suggested an improvement that could help us generalize this fix, see my inline comment…
[10:02] <jtv> Great.
[10:12] <jtv> rvba: how do I add a field to the UI form without also getting it as part of an API form submission?
[10:15] <rvba> jtv: add a mixin on top of the form that is used in the UI.
[10:17] <jtv> But what form is it that's used in the UI and not in the API?
[10:25] <rvba> jtv: I'm thinking about adding a hierarchy of forms where the UI uses the base form (the one used by the API) + a mixin that add the 'ui-specific' hidden field.
[10:26] <rvba> adds*
[10:27] <rvba> jtv: does that make sense?
[10:27]  * jtv cringes at the thought of yet more mixins
[10:28] <jtv> I do see the argument against doing it from the templates though.
[10:29] <rvba> We could probably avoid doing this with a mixin…
[10:29] <rvba> We could have this logic (add the 'ui-specific' field) in a base view class.
[10:30] <rvba> i.e. our own version of Django's django.views.generic.edit.ProcessFormView
[10:32] <jtv> How would we make use of that new view?
[10:33] <jtv> I don't see any use of ProcessFormView in our node views at the moment... is a base class for some other class we use?
[10:33] <rvba> Our views NodeListView, etc would derive from it instead of django.views.generic.edit.ProcessFormView.
[10:35] <jtv> What I'm asking is: AFAICT the views for which we need this don't derive from ProcessFormView, so how does this help them?
[10:36] <jtv> UpdateView.  That's the one we want, I think?
[10:36] <rvba> The views for which we need this *do* derive from ProcessFormView, but indirectly…
[10:36] <rvba> NodeView → UpdateView → ProcessFormView.
[10:37] <jtv> How do you change the last step in that chain without a mixin?
[10:37] <rvba> I know, this isn't possible without a mixin.
[10:37] <jtv> Right.
[10:37] <rvba> Either we change UpdateView (like you said) or we use a mixin.
[10:37] <jtv> I think UpdateView would be fine — because the problem is specific to model forms.
[10:38] <rvba> True.
[10:38] <jtv> Can we just add a field there and have it show up in UI-originated form submissions?
[10:39] <jtv> Or were you thinking to change get_form_class?
[10:39] <rvba> Well, the view itself isn't the form.  It's in charge of building the form.
[10:39] <rvba> Yeah, that's what I had in mind.
[10:52] <Ditma> Hello, is someone here who can help me out with creating a custom boot image?
[10:58] <jtv> Ditma: blake_r is probably your best bet right now, but he won't be in yet.
[10:58] <Ditma> jtv: allright thanks. I think i will try to contact him later then.
[11:00] <jtv> OK
[11:06] <jtv> allenap: I did have a question about OS support that you might know answers to, actually... any chance of a quick chat?
[11:08] <allenap> jtv: Sure.
[11:08] <jtv> Thanks.
[11:21] <jtv> allenap: conflict in your branch.  :(
[11:21] <allenap> jtv: Ta, I’ll fix that.
[11:23] <allenap> Done.
[14:08] <Ditma> Is someone online who made some experiences with MAAS and link aggregation?
[15:00] <rick_h_> hello all, I'm running into https://bugs.launchpad.net/maas/+bug/1350925 it appears and there's reference for trying the 'release candidate' is there a ppa or something I can get that from?