[00:01] <axw> blahdeblah: if the default should be to do X, what's a better approach?
[00:01] <axw> forcing someone to say "--do-X" when X is the obvious default isn't very friendly
[00:02] <axw> (whether the obvious default is to destroy on remove is debatable, but it's the default already and I'm not sure we can change *that* behaviour)
[00:02] <blahdeblah> axw: Personally, whenever it's destructive, I wouldn't have a default.  But like you say, may not be something you can change...
[00:03] <axw> blahdeblah: that has come up as an option, it's probably what we're going to do with destroy-model/destroy-controller (force you to choose between destroying/keeping storage). so *maybe* for remove-storage too
[00:03] <babbageclunk> axw: Yeah, I think I've talked myself around in the state case - it *is* destroying the storage in the model, it's just not destroying the underlying cloud storage. But there are also places in the providers and provisioner that I think would be clearer not calling the method Destroy.
[00:04] <axw> blahdeblah: FWIW, the spelling at this stage for destroy-model will be --keep-storage/--destroy-storage
[00:04] <blahdeblah> That makes good sense
[00:04] <axw> so no double negatives in sight :)
[00:04] <blahdeblah> \o/
[00:05] <axw> babbageclunk: ok. I'll see what can be done to clarify
[00:07] <babbageclunk> axw: Anyway, just wanted to give you a heads-up before I finish the review - it started to feel a bit like I was harping on about it, but it's really my only issue with the PR.
[00:08] <axw> babbageclunk: no problem, I'm always happy to make the code easier to comprehend
[00:21] <axw> hml: would you kindly take a quick look at https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/7653?
[00:21] <hml> axw: looking
[00:29] <axw> hml: thanks
[00:32] <axw> babbageclunk hml: standup
[00:32] <babbageclunk> sorry!
[01:32] <axw> babbageclunk: thanks for the review. ReleaseVolumeParams doesn't really work because release = non-descructive remove. how about "RemoveVolumeParams"? i.e. params for destroying or removing the (cloud) volume
[01:32] <axw> er, non-destructive
[01:36] <babbageclunk> axw: Yeah, I like remove too
[01:39] <babbageclunk> axw: That makes sense - so remove becomes the general term that could denote a release or a destroy.
[01:40] <axw> babbageclunk: yep. except in state :)
[01:40] <babbageclunk> axw: sure, not much we can do about that one.
[03:49] <axw> babbageclunk: can you PTAL at https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/7649/commits, I haven't rebased yet so you can see the changes I've made today
[03:49] <babbageclunk> axw: thanks - looking
[03:56] <axw> babbageclunk menn0: do you know any tricks for removing a method from a newer version of a facade? I'm embedding v3 in v4 for hte Storage API, but I want drop a method... I'd rather not duplicate methods for the ones I want to keep
[03:57] <babbageclunk> axw: If you put a method on the facade that takes 2 args, the RPC layer will ignore it.
[03:57] <babbageclunk> axw: That effectively removes it.
[03:58] <babbageclunk> axw: (This hack brought to you by wpk)
[03:58] <menn0> axw: what babbageclunk said. I think the Uniter facade does that.
[03:58] <axw> babbageclunk: that'll work, I think I saw something like that fly by
[03:58] <axw> babbageclunk menn0: ok, ta
[03:58] <menn0> axw: see the bottom of apiserver/uniter/uniter.go
[03:58] <babbageclunk> axw: what he said
[03:58] <menn0> axw: it's kinda awful but it works
[03:58] <axw> cool, got it
[03:58] <axw> yeah
[03:59] <babbageclunk> yeah, it's gross but better than the alternative.
[04:01]  * babbageclunk really should make an emacs func that builds a github url for a given go file.
[04:23] <babbageclunk> axw: Reviewed - for some reason it marked my comments as outdated, not sure why - maybe a rebase?
[04:23] <babbageclunk> axw: lgtm, anyway
[04:24] <babbageclunk> axw: Thanks for making those changes, sorry if it was a pain!
[04:31] <axw> babbageclunk: not at all
[04:31] <axw> babbageclunk: thank you. not sure why outdated, I didn't rebase
[07:16] <ashipika> menn0: hey.. i fixed https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/7642 , if you could please take another look at it..
[08:37] <menn0> ashipika: reviewed!
[08:38] <menn0> just one suggestion
[08:38] <menn0> but ship it
[08:38] <ashipika> menn0: tyvm
[11:48] <rogpeppe> jam: I just responded to https://github.com/juju/testing/pull/129 FWIW
[15:06] <mattyw> anyone around to discuss update status?
[15:07] <niedbalski> wpk, ping
[15:07] <mattyw> or more generally how uniters respond to lost connections with controllers
[22:14] <bdx> hello everyone
[22:14] <bdx> how are new series enabled in metadata for Juju to use?
[22:35] <niedbalski> wpk, hey
[22:36] <wpk> hello
[22:37] <niedbalski> wpk, we were testing the reload-spaces functionality and I wondered what's the limitation/constraint for not updating the already existing space names and just the ids/subnets? i.e. we changed the name of a space on maas, run reload-spaces but the name remains as the original
[22:40] <wpk> niedbalski: it's the next step - we identify the space by name so in case it is changed we need to trace all places in which it's used and change it too
[22:40] <wpk> niedbalski: it is on our roadmap
[22:41] <niedbalski> wpk, ok, so its a known constraint..
[22:41] <niedbalski> wpk, is there a LP bug for tracking this implementation?
[22:49] <niedbalski> anastasiamac, ^^ do you know?
[22:54] <wpk> niedbalski: I'm looking and there is one for space/subnet remove but I can't find one for rename, you're free to create one
[22:54] <niedbalski> wpk, ok
[22:54] <niedbalski> wpk, thanks!
[23:07] <anastasiamac> niedbalski: not that i can immediately recall ;) so probably not :D