[08:00] <fwereade> jam, if your will to live becomes too strong today, I pulled together a massive leadership-backport branch: http://reviews.vapour.ws/r/2205/
[13:14] <jam> fwereade: is there more than just porting other code?
[13:14] <fwereade> nope, I mentioned the couple of non-automated bits I hit
[13:15] <fwereade> jam, ^^
[13:15] <jam> fwereade: why are you here on the weekend?
[13:16] <jam> fwereade: backporting the state.Open() change seems a more serious change to the internal API in a stable release. We do depend on it, though?
[13:17] <jam> that seems to be the bulk of the line-by-line changes
[13:17] <fwereade> jam, I think we probably don't strictly *depend* -- but unpicking it felt riskier than including it
[13:17] <fwereade> jam, yeah
[13:18] <fwereade> jam, and state.Open isn't really API, is it? it's only ever called in-process
[13:18] <fwereade> jam, so we can trust the compiler :)
[13:18] <jam> hence "internal" API
[13:18] <jam> fwereade: so I don't know that we've stated "we won't change our function signatures in a stable release" as much as our over-the-wire API
[13:19] <fwereade> jam, I'd see the various, er, internal API methods as the "internal" API ;p
[13:19] <fwereade> jam, why would we want to restrict internal function signatures?
[13:19] <jam> fwereade: ABI better for you ?
[13:19] <fwereade> jam, if I were worrying about dylibs, maybe
[13:20] <fwereade> jam, but when it's all one big chunk of code compiled and linked together, I can't get too worked up about it
[13:20] <jam> fwereade: well we do happen to know some people writing extensions for various parts that will need to be aware of something like this.
[13:21] <jam> I think it falls more under if you look at "feature" vs "bugfix". I understand why we need to backport this stuff, but it does fall under the "questioning eye for a stable change"
[13:22] <jam> fwereade: anyway LGTM
[13:22] <fwereade> jam, I think I see your point, but I'm not really willing to commit to any stable package interface I don't absolutely have to ;)
[13:23] <fwereade> jam, tyvm
[20:52] <bdx> hey whats going on everyone?
[20:54] <bdx> I'm hitting my head on some mongodb issues using local provider for juju
[20:55] <bdx> my /var/log/upstart/juju-db-bdx-local.log shows http://paste.ubuntu.com/11906031/
[21:27] <fwereade> bdx, shot in the dark based on that traceback -- is something using port 38017 ?
[21:27] <fwereade> bdx, it's a bit surprising because I didn't think we ran mongod with --rest
[21:43] <thumper> o/ fwereade
[21:49] <fwereade> thumper, o/
[21:49] <thumper> fwereade: Y U make my life difficult?
[21:50] <fwereade> thumper, mainly for the sheer devilment of it, I must admit
[21:50] <fwereade> thumper, (what did I do in particular?)
[21:50] <thumper> system destroy
[21:50] <fwereade> thumper, oh, yes
[21:51] <fwereade> thumper, am I annoyingly correct or just annoying? or have you not decided yet?
[21:52] <thumper> there is no list blocks command for a system yet
[21:52] <fwereade> thumper, (either way, it may please you to know that the mosquitos are killing me here)
[21:52] <thumper> and I'm not sure I agree about the general output formatter
[21:52] <thumper> not for this case
[21:52] <thumper> I like the formatters for general "list this" type commands
[21:52] <thumper> or about this
[21:52] <fwereade> thumper, well, for this case I can put up with whatever makes sense to stderr
[21:53] <thumper> but this output was really to help inform the user
[21:53] <fwereade> thumper, I think that if it's stdout it's a bit different?
[21:53] <thumper> why?
[21:53] <thumper> we output messages to std out
[21:53] <thumper> plain text stuff
[21:53] <thumper> this is just more
[21:53] <thumper> context.Infof etc
[21:55]  * thumper digs into the windows test failure
[21:56] <thumper> fwereade: it seems the intermittent uniter test failures are becoming more common on win 2012
[21:56] <thumper> bug 1475724
[21:56] <mup> Bug #1475724: UniterSuite.TestUniterRelations <blocker> <ci> <ppc64el> <regression> <unit-tests> <windows> <juju-core:Triaged> <juju-core jes-cli:Triaged> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/1475724>
[21:58] <fwereade> thumper, I think context.Infof writes to stderr? -- and, yeah, I saw that earlier, I am a little bit suspicious of update-status but haven't looked into it
[21:58] <fwereade> thumper, would you nudge wallyworld in that direction when he comes on please?
[21:58] <thumper> fwereade: hmm... maybe it does
[21:59] <thumper> fwereade: I'm looking into it now as it is blocking the landing of the jes-cli branch
[21:59] <thumper> fwereade: that and timeouts on ppc for uniter tests :(
[21:59] <thumper> they take almost 8 minutes on my machine
[21:59] <fwereade> thumper, I dunno, I just have a vague but strong expectation that stdout contain results of what you asked for and stderr have more freeform explanatory stuff and other abrotrary bits that seemed liek a good idea
[21:59] <thumper> and ppc is slower
[22:00] <thumper> fwereade: re: output, I think that's ok
[22:02] <fwereade> thumper, fwiw, I have someone on the internet who says it's true :) http://www.jstorimer.com/blogs/workingwithcode/7766119-when-to-use-stderr-instead-of-stdout
[22:03] <fwereade> thumper, re Output, I'm not sure why people haven't been using it at all
[22:04] <fwereade> thumper, did everyone just forget it existed? or is there something important it doesn't do and is hard to fix?
[22:04] <thumper> fwereade: what are you referring to exactly?
[22:05] <thumper> fwereade: ctx.Infof and Verbosef ?
[22:05] <fwereade> thumper, juju/cmd/output.go
[22:05] <fwereade> thumper, the source of all the --format args
[22:05] <thumper> fwereade: people do use it
[22:05] <thumper> for all the places it makes sense at least
[22:05] <thumper> I do think that 'juju block list' should be fixed to use it
[22:07] <fwereade> thumper, cool -- and, ah, I see what bugged me
[22:07] <fwereade> thumper, I saw the tabwriter, and saw no output formatter
[22:07] <thumper> fwereade: you mean this time?
[22:07] <fwereade> thumper, and thought OMFG-have-all-these-new-output-formats-been-hacked-in-horribly
[22:07] <thumper> fwereade: in this case... personally, I'm ok with this
[22:08] <fwereade> thumper, but no, I see formatTabular here and there as it shoudl be and am mollified
[22:08] <thumper> as this is not 'standard' output for the command
[22:08] <thumper> it is informational only
[22:08] <fwereade> thumper, put it on stderr and I'll fold
[22:08] <thumper> ok
[22:08] <thumper> done
[22:08] <fwereade> thumper, cool :)
[22:08] <thumper> but I agree in principle about the formatters
[22:08] <thumper> and I do use it, and expect others to
[22:09] <thumper> it is used for all the user list, env list, etc
[22:09] <thumper> but these default to --format=tabular
[22:09] <thumper> for niceness
[22:09] <fwereade> thumper, yeah, I just saw those, should have been looking earlier
[22:09] <thumper> no more 'smart' bollocks
[22:09] <fwereade> thumper, and +100 to default-tabular
[22:11] <fwereade> thumper, and, yes, naming something "smart" is basically cursing it with an eternal suck magnet
[22:17]  * thumper tries to get this win 2012 VM running the juju unit tests again
[22:32] <thumper> windows just told me it finished the worker/uniter tests in -24672.05 seconds
[22:32] <thumper> I can tell you it took longer than that
[22:33] <anastasiamac> thumper: it's kind of funny.. in a sad way :D
[22:50] <thumper> oh FFS
[22:52]  * thumper looks at perrito666
[22:52] <perrito666> thumper: ?
[22:52] <thumper> perrito666: the source of the windows critical blocker is uniter_test.go line 272
[22:53] <thumper> startUpgradeError{},
[22:53] <thumper> that doesn't work on windows
[22:53] <thumper> as it does chmod 555 $CHARMDIR
[22:53] <thumper> so getting start-failed
[22:53] <thumper> instead of started
[22:55] <thumper> bogdanteleaga: ping
[22:55] <thumper> menn0: do you know much windows?
[22:55] <perrito666> thumper: apologies, I hadn't noticed that
[22:56] <thumper> I'm wondering how to rework this without disabling
[22:58] <perrito666> thumper: you can dissable that particular one by running it in a separate runUniterTests with the windows condition before and add a todo with my name in it
[22:58] <perrito666> so you are unblocked
[22:58] <perrito666> I would but it is a bit sunday dinner time fo rme
[22:58] <thumper> understood
[22:58] <thumper> I'm just wondering if I can just use 'exit 2' at the end of the script
[22:58] <thumper> instead of a chmod
[22:58] <menn0> thumper: I know it a bit
[22:59] <menn0> thumper: but i'm no expert
[22:59] <menn0> thumper: I can help with this issue now though
[22:59] <menn0> thumper: https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/1.24/+bug/1474606/comments/5
[22:59] <mup> Bug #1474606: $set updates may clear out the env-uuid field <juju-core:Triaged by menno.smits> <juju-core 1.24:In Progress by menno.smits> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/1474606>
[22:59] <menn0> thumper: it turns out what I was looking at is not quite as critical (but still needs fixing)
[23:00] <thumper> quick hangout?
[23:00] <menn0> yep
[23:02] <perrito666> thumper: we seem to require a different failure for windows we might need to do a fully different charm failure for that
[23:02] <perrito666> anyway, dinner, cheers
[23:07] <bogdanteleaga> thumper: I'm around for 3-5 mins
[23:09] <thumper> bogdanteleaga: don't worry, I'm working through it with menn0
[23:13] <bogdanteleaga> thumper: fwiw, you're probably going to have to find another way of making it fail, it *should* be possible with permissions but it might get hairy
[23:13] <bogdanteleaga> thumper: and you could use check.f to only run that test so you don't have to wait for everything
[23:13] <thumper> bogdanteleaga: looking at 'cacls $CHARMDIR /p everyone:r'
[23:14] <thumper> bogdanteleaga: think that'll work?
[23:15] <bogdanteleaga> thumper: not sure if it'll disable other permissions you'd have to try it out; also check whether that works from both ps and cmd as I'm not sure under which that particular script gets ran
[23:15] <thumper> bogdanteleaga: I'm trying it now
[23:36] <menn0> thumper: this seems to be the correct way: http://paste.ubuntu.com/11906714/
[23:39] <thumper> menn0: does it still ask for verification?
[23:40] <menn0> thumper: what do you mean? I didn't see any prompts.
[23:45] <thumper> menn0: good, tested and copied in
[23:45] <thumper> running the test now
[23:45] <thumper> if this doesn't work, I'll be ripping the test out and use test.skip for windows
[23:45] <thumper> until someone can fix it
[23:47] <thumper> it fails
[23:47] <menn0> thumper: why?
[23:47] <thumper> start-failed
[23:47] <thumper> the test doesn't give a lot of output
[23:47] <thumper> no
[23:47] <thumper> I see it
[23:48]  * thumper goes to try some again
[23:52] <thumper> for my sanity, I'm going to the gym