[00:46] @blackboxsw: I put up a PR to fix a couple of things that cause the ansible integration test to always fail on older systemd&&python versions. Additionally it tweaks the repo setup code in a way that should make it more robust and makes failing assertions more useful for debugging. https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/1691 === ananke_ is now known as ananke [07:37] hi :) [07:38] if a vmware instance of ubuntu20 does not use the vmware datasource, what could be wrong / are there specific things to be done to make it use this datasource? [07:38] like, a special boot parameter oslt, can't find it in the docs [07:53] i think we got it, we did not follow the customization steps described in https://williamlam.com/2022/06/using-the-new-vsphere-guest-os-customization-with-cloud-init-in-vsphere-7-0-update-3.html [13:15] if I upgrade cloud-init to a new version and then reboot, is my cloud.cfg file updated too or left intact? I would say intact, as there could be custom settings in it [13:48] I think that's one of those situations where with apt at least you'd get prompted for which version to use, but it would default to keeping the changed settings [13:48] not sure about other distros [14:42] falcojr: thanks, I think for RHEL happens the same too [17:39] falcojr: minor changelog omission on https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/1693 something else the new-upstream-snapshot(git-buildpackage based) needs to fix probably. [17:39] Pull 1693 in canonical/cloud-init "Ubuntu/jammy" [Open] [17:39] going through focal now [17:48] blackboxsw: that cherry pick only ever existed in the hotfix branch, so it's not anything new-upstream-snapshot would ever see [17:50] falcojr: ohh right, the whole reason we created the separate hotfix branches to avoid the pulling cherry picks into the base upstream/ubuntu/jammy branch great. I thought it implies another short coming in the new-upstream-snapshot changes [17:50] based on what we said previously about not including the hotfix changelog info, I wouldn't think it would need to be included [17:50] nevermind nothing to see here. [17:50] but maybe it should? I guess we just need a consistent way to approach it [17:54] falcojr: I'm on the fence there. the changeset you have currently, for SRU reviewers, ends up representing this next upload to focal as an aggregation of the previous hotfix22.2-0ubuntu1~20.04.2 being consumed within the 22.3 upstream version https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/Pp6MW3FBvq/ . [17:56] so it makes the review of that upload a bit more time-intensive, but I think it's a reasonable representation of the changeset delivered. I guess the problem in SRU review tracking is that if we have a long-lived hotfix branch with multiple releases, eventually we'll lose visibility to those commits/patches and release history in debian/changelog once we new-upstream-snapshot for a full SRU again [17:57] but it is strange to represent adding cherry-picks and removing them in the latest changelog when it didn't really happen in this release branch [17:58] falcojr: I'd stay let's stick with what you have up for review now as policy. undocument the cherry-picks that were applied to hotfix branches as that content is included in the d/changelog as part of the new-upstream-snapshot anyway [18:02] falcojr: actually I'll take the opposite approach I just suggested. I think it'll be easier to review and understand the history of the release debian package if we captured the previously released d/changelog entries and manually recorded the d/changelog sections that were released from any hotfix branches prior to our new-upstream-snapshot section and manually add the dropped patches comment. [18:03] blackboxsw: so I think either all or nothing [18:03] reason being SRU reviewer is going to see a debdiff of current upload vs previous published upload to pkg/ubuntu/focal-proposed in git-ubuntu [18:03] if we're not going to record the interim releases, we shouldn't include changes between the interim release and now [18:03] and they'll see the dropped cpick file in that diff and no documentation in d/changelog of actually dropping it [18:03] if we are going to include the interim release, then we should also document what changed in the changelog [18:03] falcojr: right so I flipped 180. from my prior stance. I think record them all . [18:04] add the d/changelog entries verbatim from upstream/ubuntu/focal-22.2-hotfix prior to our top-most new-upstream-snapshot section [18:05] blackboxsw: sounds good [18:05] and then manually add the drop cherry-picks line to our new-upstream-snapshot section [18:05] reworking my diff suggestion to see if that makes sense [18:06] and then policy-wise anytime we have a hotfix release, we also need to cherry-pick the release changelog sections into upstream/ubuntu/ base branch in preparation for whenever the next SRU is [18:08] so much time spent on a freakin changelog. It'd be faster if we manually curated it at this point [18:08] (not a rant at you, just a rant :P ) [18:09] diff updated https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/1693#pullrequestreview-1087280009 and yes I did that manually [18:09] Pull 1693 in canonical/cloud-init "Ubuntu/jammy" [Open] [18:09] no cherry-pick please. don't waste your time finding the commitish [18:09] I'm with you on spending too much time on accounting basically [18:09] blackboxsw: thanks, you're quicker on that than me [18:10] falcojr: my patch was for focal, but I put in on the jammy branch :/ [18:10] will add that diff to focal.... updating jammy now [18:10] heh, all good. I'll get them worked out [18:10] +1 [18:11] faster and "wronger" [18:18] patches corrected for focal and jammy [18:18] rebuilding now to confirm no lints [18:19] jammy w/ patch no debian/* diffs unaccounted for in d/changelog https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/sRgddwSsTP/ [18:19] and makes our topmost d/changelog section "clean" when reviewing the supplemental diff [18:23] blackboxsw: actually now I have duplicated changelog entries [18:24] I should remove the postinst redact from 22.3 since we have it in the hotfix, right? [18:24] falcojr: good pt. yes remove the duplcated lines that show up again in the top-most section. (because they were already officially released via hotfix publish)( [18:28] blackboxsw: I think all 3 are up to date now [18:30] ok today I'm documenting the hotfix process for uss-tableflip:doc/ubuntu_release_process.md too [18:30] we had a breadcrumb in there, but not enough [18:31] we had a breadcrumb in there, but not enough ... and nothing in cloud-init RTD content... probably want that too [18:31] at least from a tag perspective [18:31] so others can track whether upstream releases have followup hotfixes [18:32] blackboxsw: part of it is that we're doing some new things so making it up as we go [18:32] +1 [19:23] bionic/focal/jammy uploads good [19:24] PRs & tags pushed to upstream [19:34] . [23:03] blackboxsw or holmanb: if either of you are still around we have a request in #ubuntu-release (pinged here because we're all here)