[04:28] <suchvenu> Hi
[04:30] <suchvenu> Does all the charms which are tested on local containers and AWS , work on Canonical MAAS and VMs if we just configure these environments ?
[05:06] <lathiat> suchvenu: generally speaking the charms should work on any cloud provider
[05:08] <suchvenu> ya. So if we have the environemnt configured for any of the Juju supported environments, it should ideally work, right ?
[05:09] <suchvenu> Also is Softlayer supported by Juju ?
[05:10] <lathiat> yeah, i am sure there are some exceptions, i.e. some less well supported/third party charms might make a bad assumption or may depend on some cloud specific service.. but that would be the exception and unlikely found in any of the major supported charms
[05:10] <lathiat> certianly if it works on a local container, it would likely work in anything maas, vm/metal/containers
[05:13] <suchvenu> ok
[05:13] <suchvenu> Also is Softlayer supported by Juju ?
[05:14] <lathiat> if you google, it would seem to suggest there is a third party plugin for it but it's possibly outdated
[05:14] <lathiat> you can see a list of providers at https://jujucharms.com/docs/stable/getting-started if you expand the "Install & Configure" section with the + symbol
[05:16] <suchvenu> Ya i had a look at this section, but couldn't find Softlayer there.
[05:20] <suchvenu> Thanks lathiat for your response.
[09:13] <jamespage> gnuoy, morning
[09:13] <jamespage> any chance of a review of https://code.launchpad.net/~james-page/charm-helpers/lp1531102/+merge/281589
[09:13] <jamespage> our version detection code is a little foobar for >= liberty
[09:14] <gnuoy> jamespage, sure
[09:48] <jamespage> gnuoy, do we have that auto-resync process yet?
[09:48] <jamespage> ;)
[09:49] <gnuoy> jamespage, we do not I'm afraid
[09:52] <jamespage> gnuoy, OK I'll raise the MP's now then
[13:06] <marcoceppi> lazyPower: you around?
[14:07] <icey> anybody have time to take a look soon at a new charm layer before I push it out to the world?
[14:07] <marcoceppi> icey: I could take a look but it wouldn't be immediate
[14:10] <icey> marcoceppi https://github.com/ChrisMacNaughton/juju-layer-rails is where it lives for now
[14:11] <icey> and thanks!
[14:18] <lazyPower> marcoceppi i am
[18:07] <sharan> Hi kevin
[18:08] <sharan> i was implementing peer relation
[18:08] <sharan> when i removing the unit, i want to restart the server  on all the unit
[18:09] <sharan> where i can implement this piece of code
[18:10] <sharan> do i need implement this code in relation-departed hook?
[18:12] <sharan> Hi
[18:13] <sharan> i am implementing peer relation, once i remove the unit, server has to be restarted on all the container, how can achieve this
[18:27] <sharan> i am implementing peer relation, once i remove the unit, server has to be restarted on all the container, how can i achieve this
[18:39] <bdx> marcoceppi: I've added my charm to the review queue, it looks like some jenkins tests ran and failed for aws and lxc, it also looks like jenkins deployed the tests on precise. Also, I can't seem to login to the review queue.
[18:40] <bdx> marcoceppi: is this all expected behavior?
[18:41] <sharan> i am implementing peer relation, once i remove the unit, server has to be restarted on all the container, how can i achieve this
[19:28] <jose> tvansteenburgh: ping
[19:32] <tvansteenburgh> jose: hey
[19:33] <jose> tvansteenburgh: just wondering, is it usual for the CI infrastructure to delete test results after a certain period of time?
[19:33] <tvansteenburgh> jose: it's expected, yeah
[19:33] <jose> hmm ok
[19:34] <tvansteenburgh> not necessarily ideal, but it will be addressed
[19:34] <tvansteenburgh> plan is to link to the parsed results page instead of the ci log
[19:35] <tvansteenburgh> since those are archived in a db and won't go away
[19:37] <jose> ok, awesome
[19:37] <jose> was worried because when I was checking at some test results for unreviewed MPs they were gone
[19:38] <tvansteenburgh> yeah, sorry about that. feel free to rerun tests when that happens until this is improved
[19:38] <jose> thanks!
[19:53] <jose> marcoceppi: hey! just as a reminder, if there's anything related to charms that could use a hand, there's some GCI students eager to help
[19:53] <marcoceppi> jose: yes, I'm about to submit some more tasks
[19:54] <jose> woot woot!
[20:36] <jcastro> marcoceppi: would submitting some charms consuming like the php layer be GCI appropriate?
[20:53] <marcoceppi> jcastro: maybe?
[20:53] <marcoceppi> I mean, we want people to maintain charms, not really drive by
[22:27] <stokachu> is there docs other than the email that describe the layer.yaml options?
[22:28] <stokachu> marcoceppi, ^
[22:30] <stokachu> never did see that followup post to the announce email on an example
[22:33] <rick_h_> stokachu: https://jujucharms.com/docs/devel/authors-charm-building have anything?
[22:33] <stokachu> rick_h_, nah doesn't have anything describing the new layer.yaml options feature
[22:33] <rick_h_> stokachu: oh, :(
[22:38] <stokachu> it supposedly uses jsonschema
[22:38] <stokachu> but the layer config is yaml
[22:39] <stokachu> bcsaller, any docs on this ^?
[22:52] <marcoceppi> stokachu: sorry, not yet, but ehre's an example
[22:53] <marcoceppi> stokachu: https://github.com/juju-solutions/reactive-base-layer/pull/18/files
[22:53] <marcoceppi> stokachu: while building the example I found a bug
[22:54] <marcoceppi> https://github.com/juju/charm-tools/issues/85#issuecomment-168428138
[22:56] <stokachu> marcoceppi, nice so defines: then the options in jsonschema form?
[22:56] <marcoceppi> stokachu: yes, and the key name is the key that's used
[22:57] <marcoceppi> stokachu: it follows actions.yaml format almost to a T
[22:57] <stokachu> so packages would be the option name
[22:57] <stokachu> and it would be prefixed?
[22:58] <stokachu> so like nodejs-packages as the config option to query
[22:58] <stokachu> marcoceppi, ^
[23:01] <marcoceppi> stokachu: see this for example:
[23:01] <marcoceppi> https://github.com/juju/charm-tools/issues/85#issue-124516900
[23:02] <marcoceppi> stokachu: options is a dictionary of layers whos keys are dictionaries of key-val
[23:02] <marcoceppi> stokachu: so it's options: nodejs: packages:
[23:02] <marcoceppi> stokachu: however, packages we agreed should be a basic layer functionality
[23:03] <marcoceppi> stokachu: we just have a problem where lists and dicts are not additive
[23:03] <marcoceppi> we're working on a fix