[02:04] * babbageclunk goes for a run [04:02] otp [04:17] thumper: robot again [04:18] it normally settles down [04:18] not sure why it does this [04:24] axw, jam: I'm going [04:47] axw: ping? [05:05] babbageclunk: pong [05:07] axw: hey - just tried an lxc-lxd upgrade with an IS chap - it returned an error about unknown config key lxd.hook.mount [05:07] axw: how do you think I should handle that? [05:08] I haven't been able to find anything on lxd mount hooks on the web. [05:08] babbageclunk: lxd.hook.mount? or lxc.hook.mount? [05:09] axw: oops, the latter [05:09] babbageclunk: can you check what the hook is? I haven't come across that one in my testing [05:10] From here https://linuxcontainers.org/lxc/manpages/man5/lxc.container.conf.5.html it's a script that runs after mounting is done but before pivot_root, whatever that is. [05:11] babbageclunk: yeah, this is on bootstack? I think I found a charm that's setting that in lxc config [05:12] axw: yup - I think they're using it to set static routes in the containers. === frankban|afk is now known as frankban [10:14] rogpeppe1: sorry, my PR is a bit messy. I would appreciate your thoughts on the general approach [10:14] it started out as a targeted PR, then morphed along the way [10:14] axw: i just looked at it in passing tbh. [10:14] axw: i don't really understand it, i'm afraid, or quite what the eventual motivation is [10:15] rogpeppe1: ok. motivations are in the description, which I take I didn't express well :) [10:16] rogpeppe1: gotta eat dinner and then go out, will try again tomorrow [10:18] axw: ok, i think i understand the motivation a bit more now [10:18] axw: but... if we moved to something like Raft, would we really keep all the Op crap? [10:19] rogpeppe1: not the underlying ones, no. but the high level operations, yes - they're the ones that would map to log entries [10:19] rogpeppe1: i.e. DestroyUnitOperation et al. would be made serializable, and would be a log entry [10:19] that's my vague idea atm anyway [10:20] axw: ok, that seems reasonable [10:20] there'd need to be another sort of entry for ops in a transaction [10:20] axw: but for mongo, i'm not entirely convinced that arbitrary operations can be composed [10:21] rogpeppe1: no, they can't, but we do it already... :) [10:21] axw: this will only make it worse, right? [10:22] axw: because people will *think* they can compose a NewService op with a DestroyUnit op, for example [10:22] rogpeppe1: hmm, I'm not sure. I guess it would encourage it for future operations. for existing ones, I don't think they're going to be any worse [10:22] I mean State.AddApplication adds both application and unit ops; if we compose them outside, yo uget the same result [10:23] axw: anyway, i'd like to see a more focused version of the PR so that it's clear what changes are as a result of the introduction of ModelTransaction [10:23] rogpeppe1: ok, will try and do that tomorrow [10:23] axw: yup, that's true for AddApplication specifically, and it's tested that way [10:24] fair point. bounded badness [10:24] axw: but i'm concerned that if we provide arbitrary composition, that things will fail easily [10:24] axw: also, it's very easy to blow the txn doc size limit [10:24] axw: (we already do in some cases) [10:27] * axw out === frankban is now known as frankban|afk