[14:44] arges: around? can I poke you to process bcache-tools/precise-proopsed out of NEW? [14:44] that way, I can test it and confirm it. [14:48] lamont: yes [14:48] lamont: looking [14:49] ta [14:49] arges: and then there's bug 1515661 [14:51] lamont: so this works with precise/3.2 or do you need to use the lts-trusty kernel [14:51] bcache that is [14:53] bcache needs the kernel module that hasn't been backported to the precise kernel [14:54] which is acceptable, in that we can document taht you have to use hwe-t kernel [14:55] tbf, I haven't actually checked the stock precise kernel. let me do that for giggles, but I'm 99% certain that it'll tell me to jump in a lake [14:55] lamont: so just to be clear, hwe-t works? or you have to use an out of tree module build? [14:56] hwe-t is demonstrated to work [14:56] lamont: ok ok [14:56] though it did require me to use 1515661's kernel/initrd [14:57] which actually means that really testing stock precise with any hope of success needs 1515661 to land along with bcache-tools, and a new daily image... [14:58] lamont: so ideally for cloud-initramfs-tools we need bug 1236380 to be verified as well and it should cook in -proposed for 7 days [15:00] * lamont pokes smoser about that [15:00] infinity: ^^^ since you did the acceptance, is this one of those high prio things we should push out sooner than later? cloud-initramfs-tools in precise [15:00] arges: it's a blocker for maas1.9, which will rc2 this week, if I'm understanding things correctly [15:01] lamont: ok good to know [15:02] i think at a minimum getting bug 1236380 verified should be done [15:06] arges: so... 1236380 is actually "not fixed, but not regressing anything" -- I'll be updating it shortly with what I think is an actual diff [15:06] lamont: ok appreciate it [15:06] but I don't know that we need to reject the promotion on that account [15:07] arges: and I've been schooled. [15:08] * lamont doesn't actuallyhave anything to test that with, so it's semi problematic [15:08] and I misread the code. [15:13] arges: trying to make a machine that loves it enoug to exercise that code. as a side note, regression is highly unlikey, in that every trusty cloud boot since early 2014 has been exercising this very code. [15:14] lamont: ack. also not sure if some maas people could also verify too. i'd think some arm hardware might run into this issue more frequently? [15:14] but then again probably not running precise [15:14] arges: tbf, I am one of the maas people. [15:15] but yeah, seeing what I can see [15:15] lamont: ah. : ) [15:43] arges: I don't mind it being fasttracked, if they prove they've tested the three bits that changed. [15:44] infinity: ack [15:48] * lamont finds a laptop that netboots === henrix_ is now known as henrix [17:07] arges: and yeah, stupid sd cards shows up as sdb on the both of hte machines I can test with, so no go for my testing. [17:08] lamont: ok [17:08] otoh, I'm willing to believe that it's at least no worse than the prior code wrt 1236380 [17:13] lamont: ok made a note in the bug to please re-open if verification fails. thanks for attempting to verify this one [17:17] ta [17:19] lamont: bcache-tools accepted, so once that hits the archive you can verify. [17:22] arges: woot [17:22] * lamont looks forward to dropping his ppa and associated hackery from his last test [17:24] arges: will test in several minutes, since I see it released [18:44] * stgraber pokes queuebot, there should be two more of those :) [18:49] can I sweet talk someone into letting django-piston3 out of NEW? (xenial) [18:58] Laney, micahg: updated lxc backport in trusty-backports queue (two cherry-picks from upstream) === Guest12059 is now known as med_ [19:37] stgraber: looking