[14:13] <dholbach> davidcalle, mhall119: do you know if we have any deployment blockers right now?
[14:14] <davidcalle> dholbach: afaik no, but that's what I'm looking into, I'm reviewing the mojo spec, especially where it pulls data from
[14:14] <dholbach> cool
[14:15] <dholbach> thanks a lot for looking into that
[14:17] <davidcalle> I know there is at least one backport I need to do from the on-server branch to the lp branch (cause you can't actually push branch changes from the server)
[14:31] <dholbach> ok
[14:33] <mhall119> davidcalle: how are we going to manage the staging branch from now on, since the the way we had been using it isn't going to work
[14:35] <davidcalle> mhall119: I would be in favor of ditching it and going back to feature branches merging in to trunk, then prod. From there testing on staging, then real prod. My very-short tem goal is to make a spec allowing a local deployment.
[14:43] <mhall119> davidcalle: in that case, I'd say our branch merging workflow should mimick our deployment workflow, trunk->staging->production
[14:43] <mhall119> which would make the staging environment a little less flexible, as we will need to coordinate deployments to it
[14:44] <mhall119> but, if you get local deployments working with the spec, that becomes a non-issue
[14:44] <mhall119> so staging become "pre-production" instead of "testing"
[14:45] <davidcalle> mhall119: it appears to be our only option (without touching the current juju/mojo processes), yeah