[00:05] <momousta> blackboxsw_, This PR https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/529 is now ready for rereview.
[01:59] <blackboxsw_> momousta: excellent. I'll peek at it tomorrow
[02:02] <blackboxsw_> BTW on first glance. things look good. will peek in depth tomrrow morn
[03:41] <momousta> Great, thanks in advance.
[16:38] <blackboxsw_> momousta: if around. review complete on your PR with the expection of one question https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/529#pullrequestreview-471784769
[16:39] <blackboxsw_> and 2 minor inline comments left on your branch
[16:39] <momousta> Sure, I'll take a look. Thank
[17:00] <momousta> blackboxsw_, answered the question and incorporated the suggested changes
[18:06] <blackboxsw_> momousta: thanks. I'm giving this one more run in azure and will land it
[19:04] <blackboxsw_> merged https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/529 thanks momousta
[19:21] <blackboxsw_> falcojr: I just merged Odd_Bloke's xenial grub fix. looking over yours now
[19:21] <blackboxsw_> https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/514
[19:27] <blackboxsw_> falcojr: https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/537 landed
[19:29] <blackboxsw_> https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/538 landed
[19:29] <blackboxsw_> so xenial bionic and focal in good shape
[19:29] <blackboxsw_> for grub-related issues
[20:08] <blackboxsw_> falcojr: I'm wrapping up review comments on compressed ud via cloud-init query branch https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/516
[20:09] <blackboxsw_> when that's landed, I think we are a "go" for cutting upstream release 20.3
[20:10] <blackboxsw_> rharper and minimal thanks for the work, review and landing Alpine linux support via https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/535
[20:10] <blackboxsw_> I don't *think* there were any other branches that we were waiting on for upstream release of cloud-init 20.3
[20:11] <blackboxsw_> if there are other in flight PRs that we expect to land before SRU, someone can bonk me over the head with a keyboard.. otherwise, by EOD today, I think we are ready to cut that release
[20:16] <rharper> blackboxsw_:  sure;  I don't know of anything else
[20:35] <blackboxsw_> thanks. ok awaiting CI on https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/516 falcojr, then we can cut a new upstream 20.3 I think
[20:35] <blackboxsw_> that should contain the handling of compressed userdata from cloud-init query (which breaks juju deployed cloudinit vms)
[20:36] <blackboxsw_> ... well, which breaks ubuntu-advantage-tools `ua attach` of juju deployed vms on clouds
[20:36] <blackboxsw_> to be more specific
[21:18] <blackboxsw_> ok one more branch that we are hoping to close out on for this upstream release.... if possible: https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/516 needs an upstream reviewer +1 rharper or smoser if you guys get a chance. OddBloke is out for two weeks
[21:19] <blackboxsw_> I addressed all review comments
[21:19] <blackboxsw_> failure case is testable by juju deploy ubuntu on ec2 and trying to run 'cloud-init query --all'
[21:20] <blackboxsw_> github won't let me merge it as I haven't gotten an official upstream dev +1
[21:20] <rharper> blackboxsw_: lemme look
[21:20] <blackboxsw_> thanks ryan
[21:34] <rharper> blackboxsw_: reviewed; just a few suggestions on the docstrings;  and I don't have strong opinions on the pytest stuff so I hope suggestions/changes to that can be done separately if we land the PR today
[21:40] <blackboxsw_> thanks rharper I've addressed those docstring concerns, I think I was trying to document too much in the load_userdata function. That base64-encoding is what cloud-init utility function load_json does when it can't serialize binary data (before we ultimately output the JSON instance-data merged dictionary)
[21:40] <blackboxsw_> so that docstring didn't really belong in that load_userdata function
[21:41] <blackboxsw_> and I figured the unittest rework I'd have to talk to Odd_Bloke about in 2 weeks just to see if generally we can make the pytest fixture a bit more flexible for the use-case I have
[21:41] <rharper> ok
[21:44] <blackboxsw_> thanks again. I think we are awaiting feedback on one more Azure PR for boot timeouts, but that should wrap it for this upstream release
[21:50] <rharper> nice