[15:37] <Odd_Bloke> blackboxsw: rharper: https://github.com/isaacs/github/issues/1303#issuecomment-595231303 looks relevant
[15:38] <rharper> Odd_Bloke: oi!
[15:38] <Odd_Bloke> So it sounds like GitHub changed behaviour, and has now reverted that change due to it causing exactly the sort of issue that we saw.
[15:38] <rharper> "We made a change yesterday that will be causing that."
[15:38] <rharper> dang
[15:38] <Odd_Bloke> And Fred was just unlucky when it came to the timing of the merge.
[15:38] <rharper> so, in the face of that, do we still want to leave it as it is? or force push to fix ?
[15:39] <Odd_Bloke> I think we should make very sure we attribute Fred in the release notes/changelog appropriately, but I don't think a force push is worth it for this, frustrating as that is for Fred.
[15:39] <rharper> "By doing so, you have the last word in "authoring" the resulting squashed commit."   -- so if the sqaush/merger has the last word;   it's not clear to me how we make sure it's the PR author in there; do we include Author: <...> in the commit message ?
[15:40] <Odd_Bloke> They've reverted the change, so I don't think we need to do anything.
[15:41] <Odd_Bloke> https://github.com/isaacs/github/issues/1303#issuecomment-595595284 is the latest info.
[15:41] <rharper> heh, until it is; I guess the fact that in the UI it's not clear who is getting the Authorship is my concern
[15:41] <Odd_Bloke> "the PR author becomes the squashed commit's author"
[15:41] <rharper> right; I wonder how we can see that in the UI
[15:41] <Odd_Bloke> I don't know that we can.
[15:41] <rharper> =(
[15:42] <rharper> someone gets to be unlucky again
[16:41] <Odd_Bloke> Yeah. :/
[16:49] <Odd_Bloke> Did one of us cause https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/236 to be submitted?
[16:50] <blackboxsw> Odd_Bloke: I was wondering that too.
[16:50] <rharper> not me
[16:50] <Odd_Bloke> powersj: ?
[16:50] <blackboxsw> figured we'd talk in github meeting today
[16:50] <rharper> yeah
[16:50] <blackboxsw> not I said the fly
[16:50] <rharper> lol
[16:51] <blackboxsw> and did this rennovate plugin also cause/trigger the 'wip' action to run on https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/214
[16:52] <blackboxsw> or is the wip action another magic 'thing' that just showed up too
[16:52] <blackboxsw> separately
[16:52] <powersj> I think someone installed it for the canonical org and enabled it for us as well
[16:53] <Odd_Bloke> Aha, that makes sense.
[17:14] <blackboxsw> thanks for the review rharper on https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/214   addressed comments (and dropped a bunch of duplicated doc content I hadn't meant to preserve
[17:18]  * blackboxsw is only ec2 secondary ipv4/ipv6 support branch https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/214
[17:18] <blackboxsw> then will hit the review queue for cloud-init
[17:19] <blackboxsw> I mean ec2 PR is https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/114
[17:19] <blackboxsw> https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/1c229570-cf51-4374-8dd2-55648e940164
[18:17] <Odd_Bloke> smoser: Thanks for the review on that pytest branch, we definitely ended up in a better place as a result. :)
[18:18] <Odd_Bloke> blackboxsw: Your request changes (on https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/211) is blocking it from landing, could you take a look when you have a minute?
[19:04] <blackboxsw> Odd_Bloke: definitely. rharper I see you approved https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/214
[19:04] <rharper> blackboxsw: yes, looks good now
[19:04] <blackboxsw> so my question really is,  (given ubuntu feature freeze) what we should do with 214 and 211
[19:04] <rharper> we landed and uploaded our bug fixes, right ?
[19:04] <rharper> and 214 has an FFE< right ?
[19:05] <blackboxsw> rharper: bug fixes are landed, and 214 is FFe
[19:05] <blackboxsw> but 211 should probably land too, but it's not an FFe or bug-fix really
[19:05] <rharper> we have two ffes right ?
[19:05] <rharper> are they both done yet ?
[19:05] <blackboxsw> rharper: 214 is 'done' and 114 is in progress and I probably can finish it today
[19:06] <blackboxsw> ec2 secondary nics
[19:06] <rharper> I have a feeling that 211 ?
[19:06] <blackboxsw> ec2 secondary ips I mean
[19:06] <rharper> oh right, 211 (pytest) 214 (sys_info in instance-data), and secondary ips (114)
[19:07] <rharper> heh, "old"
[19:07] <blackboxsw> yeah should've done the secondary ips a looong time ago ... ahh well
[19:07] <rharper> lacking a clear answer here, I'd ask in #ubuntu-devel on , or read more on FFE w.r.t whether we can do a new-upstream-snapshot into focal or if we have to cherry pick  and then cleanup when we do first SRU into focal after release