[08:16] <Chipaca> ｇｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｏｄ  ｍｏｒｎｉｎｇ！
[08:35] <jam> morning Chipaca
[09:45] <Chipaca> taking a page from pytest, would 'pip install ops-k8s' feel like a reasonable way to install the k8s ops component?
[09:51] <jam> Chipaca, ops-k8s or component-k8s both feel good to me
[09:51] <jam> ops-lib-k8s
[09:51] <jam> just to brainstorm some things
[09:56] <Chipaca> ops-lib-k8s sgtm :)
[09:59] <jam> Chipaca, yeah, I think I like it the most so far
[09:59] <jam> and it fits the 'opslib' ops.lib stuff
[10:08] <Chipaca> it's not ready yet but https://github.com/chipaca/ops-lib-k8s exists :)
[10:21] <jam> oooh, shiny
[10:35] <jam> Chipaca, do we want people to typically put everything into __init__ or just import it into there?
[10:35] <jam> It feels odd to have a package that only has an __init__.py
[10:35] <Chipaca> jam: tbh in this case it could just be a k8s.py :)
[10:35] <jam> Chipaca, indeed, but does our ops lib support that?
[10:35] <Chipaca> i'm torn on which one is better
[10:35] <jam> Also where is LIBNAME, etc
[10:35] <Chipaca> this doesn't have opslib support yet
[10:36] <jam> Chipaca, I like that you can grow into having multiple files
[10:36] <Chipaca> i'll get to that :)
[10:36] <Chipaca> me too
[10:36] <Chipaca> but python doesn't care really, k8s.py and k8s/__init__.py are used in the same way
[10:37] <Chipaca> anyway, right now i'm getting it to work on 3.5
[10:38] <Chipaca> python 3.5 doesn't support TLS newer than 1.2
[10:57] <jam> Chipaca, *sigh*. given Firefox now needs you to explicitly enable support for older TLS
[10:58] <jam> Chipaca, out of curiousity, why "k8s_test.py" and not "test_k8s.py" I know we use the latter in ops, but was trying to figure out if there is a standard
[10:58] <facubatista> ¡Muy buenos días a todos!
[10:59] <jam> morning facubatista
[11:00] <facubatista> hola jam
[11:00] <Chipaca> jam: just because i renamed it
[11:00] <Chipaca> i mean
[11:00] <Chipaca> i did not rename it
[11:00] <Chipaca> :)
[11:00] <Chipaca> jam: i suspect unittest wouldn't find the former, fwiw
[11:30] <facubatista> Chipaca, jam, When building replace current hooks that are links to the charm https://github.com/canonical/charmcraft/pull/85
[11:30] <mup> PR charmcraft#85: When building replace current hooks that are links to the charm <Created by facundobatista> <https://github.com/canonical/charmcraft/pull/85>
[11:38] <facubatista> Chipaca, jam: The "list revisions from the Store" command - https://github.com/canonical/charmcraft/pull/86
[11:38] <mup> PR charmcraft#86: The "list revisions from the Store" command <Created by facundobatista> <https://github.com/canonical/charmcraft/pull/86>
[12:28] <facubatista> AttributeError: type object 'datetime.datetime' has no attribute 'fromisoformat'
[12:28] <facubatista> py3.5 hates me
[12:52] <Chipaca> facubatista: with all its being
[12:56] <facubatista> I need to stop this crazy dance of pathlib2 being used in py35, which is 99% the same than pathlib
[12:56]  * facubatista will propose a branch
[13:31] <Chipaca> facubatista: standup?
[16:47] <facubatista> Chipaca, jam, in my charmcraft#86 branch, we keep "finding the information" from the context, which so far looks nice... if you're in the project, it finds the "charm name" from there... if not, you can use '--charm-name' and its fine
[16:47] <mup> PR charmcraft#86: The "list revisions from the Store" command <Created by facundobatista> <https://github.com/canonical/charmcraft/pull/86>
[16:48] <Chipaca> mhmm
[16:48] <facubatista> as it's an "option", it would be "charmcraft revisions --name=myblog", not "charmcraft revisions myblog"
[16:48] <facubatista> so far, maybe so good
[16:48] <facubatista> however, in the "release" command it gets ugly
[16:49] <facubatista> we can still guess the charm name, however the channel and revision are mandatories
[16:50] <facubatista> "charmcraft release 5 stable" looks weird
[16:50] <facubatista> "charmcraft release 5 stable --name=myblog" looks ugly
[16:50] <Chipaca> facubatista: 1 sec
[16:50] <Chipaca> charmcraft release --channel=stable --release=5 --name=myblog
[16:50] <facubatista> "charmcraft release --name=myblog --revision=5 --channel=stable" looks like those are options, but not
[16:51] <Chipaca> with --channel defaulting to edge and --release defaulting to 'last'
[16:51] <Chipaca> wouldn't that work?
[16:51] <facubatista> Chipaca, I don't know "last"
[16:51] <Chipaca> you can
[16:51] <Chipaca> by asking
[16:51] <facubatista> Chipaca, unless I go and do an extra hit to the store
[16:51] <Chipaca> why wouldn't you?
[16:51] <facubatista> Chipaca, however, isn't this a little dangerous, like releasing stuff to somewhere without the user specifying where?
[16:52] <Chipaca> that's why i suggested 'edge' be the default for channel
[16:52] <Chipaca> and not 'stable' :)
[16:52] <facubatista> yeah, sure
[16:52] <Chipaca> facubatista: OTOH you could leave channel as an argument
[16:53] <Chipaca> and make just revision an option
[16:53] <Chipaca> but then
[16:53] <facubatista> "charmcraft release edge" makes much more sense
[16:53] <Chipaca> ok :)
[16:53] <facubatista> as "last" is the revision that you want to release in the 99% of the cases
[16:53] <Chipaca> i was about to argue how it was a bit weird, but i'd be just arguing against myself :-P
[16:54] <Chipaca> facubatista: also as an aside, tab completion for --revision= would be very nice :-)
[16:54] <Chipaca> and for --name
[16:55] <Chipaca> but we can talk about that tomorrow (or next week (or...))
[16:55] <facubatista> oh, I forgot about that
[16:56] <facubatista> Chipaca, also, channel can be multiple without getting the extra weirdness when it's not alone
[16:57] <facubatista> I mean, "snapcraft myblog 4 edge" is ok, but "snapcraft myblog 4 edge beta 3.0/edge" is weird
[16:57] <facubatista> "charmcraft edge" is ok, "charmcraft edge beta 3.0/edge" is still ok
[16:57] <facubatista> sorry
[16:58] <facubatista> I mean, "snapcraft release myblog 4 edge" is ok, but "snapcraft release myblog 4 edge beta 3.0/edge" is weird
[16:58] <facubatista> "charmcraft relase edge" is ok, "charmcraft release edge beta 3.0/edge" is still ok
[17:21] <Chipaca> ok
[17:21] <Chipaca> facubatista: and --revision=4,5,6 also works
[17:21] <Chipaca> or --revision=4 --revision=5
[17:21] <Chipaca> i prefer the comma-separated one but thats just me :-)
[17:22] <facubatista> Chipaca, does it make sense to release multiple revisions at the same time?
[17:22] <facubatista> I think it may be easy to confuse
[17:22] <Chipaca> facubatista: when doing multi-arch, yes
[17:22] <facubatista> charmcraft release --revision=3 edge --revision=7 beta
[17:23] <facubatista> Chipaca, I think its way more normal to release one revision to multiple channels, than releasing several revisions at the same time
[17:25] <Chipaca> facubatista: again, when doing multi-arch, you release all the revisions that correspond to one point-in-time build at the same time, usually
[17:26] <Chipaca> facubatista: but it's not important tbh
[17:26] <Chipaca> we can nail it down later :)
[17:28] <facubatista> ok
[20:38]  * facubatista eods and eows, will be back on Monday!
[20:53] <Chipaca> facubatista: have a good one!
[20:53] <Chipaca> i'm off for today too