[00:01] <axw> babbageclunk: standup?
[00:02] <babbageclunk> oh sorry, omw
[00:18] <axw> agprado_: I wonder how many people they had off to the side ready to take that shark down :)
[00:18] <axw> seems a bit crazy to me
[05:35] <thumper> morning team
[05:35] <thumper> who is around?
[05:36] <blahdeblah> no one here but us testers! :-)
[05:36] <babbageclunk> thumper: I am around!
[05:36] <babbageclunk> also
[05:36] <babbageclunk> But I am a mere release automaton
[05:37] <thumper> babbageclunk: I hear there were some release issues
[05:37] <thumper> what is the current status?
[05:37] <babbageclunk> It's progressing apace - I'm just gpg signing a windows installer
[05:39] <babbageclunk> thumper: did the audit log demo go ok?
[05:39] <thumper> babbageclunk: it is this morning
[05:39] <babbageclunk> oh, timezones are confusing
[05:39] <thumper> what was the verify upgrade problem?
[05:40] <thumper> was it the proposed issue?
[05:40] <babbageclunk> yup
[05:40]  * thumper nods
[05:40] <thumper> we should fix that
[05:40] <babbageclunk> yup
[05:49] <thumper> babbageclunk: quick audit log feedback
[05:49] <thumper> babbageclunk: for the "who" field, can we use the tag.Id() rather than the string value?
[05:49] <thumper> that would remove the user- prefix
[05:49] <thumper> given that we only record information from users
[05:50] <babbageclunk> Sure - I thought at the time that it was good future-proofing just in case, but it's really not needed is it.
[05:50] <thumper> babbageclunk: next question
[05:50] <thumper> how do you update the exclude methods?
[05:50] <thumper> given that it is an array?
[05:51] <babbageclunk> Well, at the moment there's no way to update it - updating controller config isn't landed yet.
[05:52] <babbageclunk> But I'd envisaged overwriting it each time.
[05:52] <thumper> but most of our other commands accept a single string value
[05:52] <babbageclunk> They accept a yaml value
[05:52] <thumper> will we read a yaml file?
[05:52] <babbageclunk> Oh you mean, what's the syntax to set it?
[05:53] <babbageclunk> audit-log-exclude-methods=[Facade.Method,Other.Method...]
[05:53] <thumper> yeah
[05:53] <thumper> I'm pretty sure there is a way to specify a file...
[05:53] <thumper> other places allow something-yaml=@filename.yaml
[05:53] <thumper> we should just look into that
[05:54] <thumper> because it is unlikely that they will want to put it all on the command line
[05:54] <babbageclunk> Not sure - I haven't changed how we specify it at all
[05:55] <babbageclunk> If we accept that for other config that'll work
[05:55] <thumper> I'm also wondering whether we should exclude error responses if all the errors are nil
[05:55]  * thumper nods
[05:55] <thumper> but I'll gather feedback at the demo today
[05:55] <thumper> and let you know
[05:55] <babbageclunk> My thinking there is that we could have specified a number of things, it's useful to know which ones failed.
[05:56] <babbageclunk> (in a bulk operation)
[05:56] <thumper> sure, but it none failed, should we write something out?
[05:56] <thumper> I agree that showing which of the bulk failed is good
[05:56] <thumper> but if the command succeeds completely, it is a "boring" line
[05:56] <thumper> don't stress about it just yet
[05:56] <thumper> I'll get feedback
[05:57] <babbageclunk> I don't really like omitting the message if there's no errors - makes it hard to distinguish between a success and a truncated file.
[05:57] <babbageclunk> But no biggie
[05:58] <thumper> sure
[05:58] <thumper> sounds reasonable
[07:11] <axw> babbageclunk: your email did go through, in case you're still wondering
[07:11] <babbageclunk> cool thanks - I was
[07:11] <babbageclunk> anastasiamac only gets them after my bedtime so she couldn't help
[07:15] <anastasiamac> babbageclunk: :( i helped a little... but thank you, axw :D
[07:16] <babbageclunk> Oh, sorry anastasiamac - you were very helpful for other stuff but not for that specific delivery question!
[07:16] <anastasiamac> babbageclunk: :)
[07:19] <axw> wallyworld: I'm reviewing your PR from the beginning again, given all the new context. thanks for your patience
[16:11] <freyes> hi, in the devel stream there is no entry for juju 2.4 -> https://streams.canonical.com/juju/tools/streams/v1/com.ubuntu.juju-devel-tools.json
[17:24] <kjackal> hi, we run into some trouble when bootstraping a controller on openstack. We get an error "failed to get details for serverId" follwoed by a "Authentication responce not recieved..."
[17:25] <kjackal> how can we approach this?
[17:26] <kjackal> seems it comes from openstack provider.go:1366
[21:53] <hml> babbageclunk: ping
[21:54] <babbageclunk> hml: hey hey
[21:54] <hml> babbageclunk: do you have a few minutes?
[21:54] <babbageclunk> sure
[21:54] <babbageclunk> on a hangout?
[21:54] <hml> babbageclunk: standup HO?
[21:54] <hml> :-)
[21:54]  * babbageclunk pauses the sea shanties