[00:00] <hml> if the service for the image metadata is setup and named per the docs - it will be found automagically by juju based on the naming.
[00:00] <schkovich> hml: product-stream
[00:01] <hml> and the service type is product-streams?
[00:01] <schkovich> hml: yes
[00:01] <hml> did the debug output list the URL juju was trying it?
[00:02] <hml> you might need to list it as: http://10.0.8.52:80/swift/v1/simplestreams/images
[00:02] <hml> if that’s how you set it up
[00:03] <schkovich> hml: image-metadata-url: invalid URL "http://10.0.8.52:80/swift/v1/streams/v1/index.json" not found
[00:03] <hml> can you download from the list I just listed?
[00:04] <hml> if so , you can update your endpoint.
[00:04] <hml> juju will add the streams/v1/index.json to the end itself
[00:11] <schkovich> hml: http://10.0.8.52/swift/v1/simplestreams is giving me 200 OK
[00:12] <hml> sounds like you just need to update the endpoint service url and/or the url given on the CLI
[00:13] <schkovich> hml: yup, that was it :)
[00:14] <schkovich> hml: of course, im missing correct instance type now :)
[00:14] <schkovich> hml: anyway, thank you very much
[00:15] <hml> schkovich: you’re welcome.
[00:16] <hml> my openstack-novalxd is using the m1.medium instance type for the controller fwiw, and m1.small for a unit currently
[00:17] <schkovich> hml: i did not create all flavours eg m1.medium is missing
[00:17] <schkovich> hml: should be simple but it's 2am on my side of the globe. time to go to bed. i will continue tomorrow. :)
[00:18] <hml> schkovich: sounds good :-)
[00:18] <schkovich> hml: it's so easier when there is someone to discuss the problem with :) thanks once again
[01:17] <axw> babbageclunk: thanks for the review. did I miss anything in the standup?
[01:54] <axw> babbageclunk: https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/7646
[02:23] <babbageclunk> axw: sorry, was out - no, nothing much
[06:40] <ashipika> hi core team.. any chance i could get a review of https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/7642 ?
[08:13] <menn0> ashipika: i'm just reviewing something else. i'll do yours next.
[08:14] <ashipika> menn0: tyvm
[08:47] <menn0> ashipika: done
[13:29] <rogpeppe1> i've got a PR for a change to testing/checkers that will undoubtedly break juju tests (but in a good way, i'd suggest). https://github.com/juju/testing/pull/129
[17:21] <hml> crunchywelch: welcome - here’s the wiki link: https://github.com/juju/juju/wiki/Implementing-environment-providers
[17:23] <crunchywelch> aaay, thanks! o/
[22:44] <babbageclunk> axw: I'm looking at PR 7649 now
[23:49] <axw> babbageclunk: muchas gracias
[23:53] <babbageclunk> axw: It looks good, except I'm confused by destroy methods with don't-destroy parameters.
[23:54] <blahdeblah> any parameter on anything that says "don't do X" should be burned with fire
[23:55] <axw> babbageclunk: you mean "juju remove-storage --no-destroy" ?
[23:55] <axw> blahdeblah: happy to hear alternative suggestions to ^^
[23:56] <blahdeblah> axw: Pretty sure there's a bug about that which says that destroying should be non-default. :-)
[23:56] <axw> blahdeblah: AFAIK there's only a bug that says destroying an application/unit shouldn't destroy the storage, and that's the case now
[23:57] <blahdeblah> Ah, that might be the one I was thinking of.
[23:58] <babbageclunk> axw: No, I'm fine with `remove-storage --no-destroy` - it's the methods internally that are called DestroyX but have a parameter that means that they don't destroy the x.
[23:58] <axw> babbageclunk: ok. probably the API method, I'll check the review
[23:58] <blahdeblah> I was referring more to the general case where code does X by default and then someone puts in an option to toggle the behaviour, and calls it "disable_X" which defaults to false rather than "enable_X" and defaulting to true.  It just makes the logic more complex for the user to understand.
[23:58] <babbageclunk> axw: I'd rather they were named in the same way as the command - RemoveX with an argument that says whether to also destroy.
[23:59] <axw> babbageclunk: hmm I guess I'm OK with that. the main reason it's not Remote, is because of the distinction between Destroy and Remove in state