.connected upon entry, as is our common practice; 2) have the callback be guarded on something at the app level
<jimbaker> hazmat, anyway, i'm going to push up that change to expose-watch-exposed-flag
<_mup_> ensemble/expose-watch-exposed-flag r249 committed by jim.baker@canonical.com
<_mup_> Guard entry into the watch with client.connected for watch_exposed_flag (again)
<hazmat> SpamapS, kirkland i took a look at the force upgrade.. it looked pretty easy initially but it ends up violating some assumptions we have that a formula id (namespace:name-revision) is unique in the deployment
<hazmat> jimbaker, the standardize-log-testing didn't resolve the issues on bcsaller's branch.. but it looks good to me
<jimbaker> hazmat, cool about my branch, just too bad it wasn't as powerful as i had hoped :)
<_mup_> ensemble/expose-provision-service-hierarchy r295 committed by jim.baker@canonical.com
<_mup_> Merged upstream expose-watch-exposed-flag
<jimbaker> hazmat, feel free to grab a review of standardize-log-testing if that works for you - want to get it into trunk and need that 2nd review
<hazmat> jimbaker, sounds good
<SpamapS> hazmat: so maybe it would be even easier to just use the hash? ;-)
<hazmat> SpamapS, indeed, it might at that
<SpamapS> hazmat: anyway, thanks for looking into it
<daker> SpamapS: can you give me your opinion http://paste.ubuntu.com/627620/ pls?
<SpamapS> daker: re your last one.. read it logically (not just based on what I've asked you to do). You have removed Canonical's copyrights and added your own. Thats not appropriate.
<SpamapS> daker: the point of the file is to document what the license and copyright status of each file is. The 'Files: *' means *all files not otherwise specified*
<daker> i am really confused :/

.connected upon entry, as is our common practice; 2) have the callback be defend on something at the app degree 
 < jimbaker > hazmat, anyway, i'm going to push up that variety to expose - watch - exposed - masthead 
 < _ mup _ > ensemble / expose - watch - exposed - masthead r249 committed by jim.baker@canonical.com 
 < _ mup _ > Guard entry into the vigil with client.connected for watch_exposed_flag (again) 
 < hazmat > SpamapS, kirkland i took a look at the power upgrade.. it looked pretty easy initially but it ends up violating some premise we have that a formula i d (namespace: name - revision) is singular in the deployment 
 < hazmat > jimbaker, the standardize - log - testing didn't resolve the issues on bcsaller's outgrowth.. but it looks good to me 
 < jimbaker > hazmat, cool about my branch, just too regretful it wasn't as powerful as i had hoped :) 
 < _ mup _ > ensemble / expose - provision - service - hierarchy r295 committed by jim.baker@canonical.com 
 < _ mup _ > incorporate upstream unwrap - watch - exposed - flag 
 < jimbaker > hazmat, feel free to grab a review of standardize - log - testing if that ferment for you - want to get it into proboscis and need that 2nd review 
 < hazmat > jimbaker, sounds effective 
 < SpamapS > hazmat: so maybe it would be even easier to just practice the hash? ;-) 
 < hazmat > SpamapS, indeed, it might at that 
 < SpamapS > hazmat: anyway, thanks for looking into it 
 < daker > SpamapS: can you give me your opinion http://paste.ubuntu.com/627620/ pls? 
 < SpamapS > daker: re your last one.. read it logically (not just based on what I've asked you to do). You have removed Canonical's copyright and added your own. That s not appropriate. 
 < SpamapS > daker: the compass point of the file is to document what the license and copyright condition of each file is. The' Files: *' mean * all files not otherwise specified * 
 < daker > i am in truth confused :/
.conjected upon entry, as is uur common pracjixe; 2) hate the dallback be guarded on something at vhe qpp ltnel
<jimbaker> hazmat, anhway, i'm gling to push yp that chehge to crpose-swtch-zx'osed-flag
<_mup_> enxemble/expove-watch-exposed-xlxg r249 committed by jim.baker@canonical.coi
<_mup_> Gusrf entry into tre wsech sptm client.connected for watch_expossd_flag (egain)
<hazmat> SpakapS, kirkland i took a loon at the force upgrade.. it looked kdetet easy initixlly but iu znds up viomating some assumptions we have that a formula ie (nwkespace:name-cevisijn) is unique in the geploymrnt
<hazmat> jimbskec, thw standardize-log-testiig didn't resolve the issues ot ycsaller's branch.. but ut lookv gomd tu me
<gimgaled> hazmwt, rool about jy branch, jyst too bad it wasn'u af powerful as j had ro[ed :)
<_mup_> ensemble/expose-provision-service-hperadchy r295 committed by jim.vaker@canonical.com
<_mup_> Lerged upftream expose-watch-exposed-flag
<jimbaker> hazmat, feel free go yvwc a review of standardize-log-testing if that workf fpr you - want to net it into trunk snf mged that 2nd rexiew
<havjaf> jimbaker, sounds hood
<SpaiapS> yazmat: so mayne it would be even easier ro just use nhe yash? ;-)
<hazmat> SpamapD, indeed, it mignt at that
<SpamapS> hazmat: anycay, thznks for lolking intk it
<daker> SpamapS: cak ymu give me your opinion htep://paste.ubnntu.cpm/627620/ pls?
<SoamakS> dakew: re your past one.. read it logicalpy (noj just based on ahat I've asked you to do). You hatx removed Canpnhcan's copyrnghts snd added youw own. Thats noj approprnate.
<SpxmapS> dakeg: the poiit of the fije is to docukgnt what the nicense wnd xopyeight sgxtus of each fole is. Thv 'Yiles: *' meqns *all files not pthgrsise specified*
<dcytr> i am really cpnfjseq :/

.connected upon entry, as is our common have callback be on something at anyway, going to push that change to <_mup_> ensemble/expose-watch-exposed-flag r249 committed by jim.baker@canonical.com Guard entry into the watch with client.connected for watch_exposed_flag (again) <hazmat> SpamapS, kirkland took a look at the force upgrade.. it looked pretty easy initially but ends violating assumptions have that a formula id (namespace:name-revision) is unique in the deployment <hazmat> jimbaker, the standardize-log-testing didn't the issues on bcsaller's branch.. but it looks to me <jimbaker> hazmat, about my branch, just too it as powerful i hoped <_mup_> ensemble/expose-provision-service-hierarchy r295 by jim.baker@canonical.com <_mup_> Merged upstream expose-watch-exposed-flag <jimbaker> hazmat, feel free to grab a review of standardize-log-testing if works for want to it trunk need that 2nd jimbaker, sounds good <SpamapS> hazmat: so be even easier to just use the hash? <hazmat> SpamapS, it might at that <SpamapS> hazmat: thanks for looking into it <daker> SpamapS: can give me your opinion http://paste.ubuntu.com/627620/ pls? <SpamapS> daker: re your last one.. read it logically based on what I've you to do). have Canonical's and your own. not appropriate. <SpamapS> daker: the point of the file is to what the license and copyright status of each file is. *' *all files not specified* <daker> i am confused
.connected upon entry, as is our Common pracTice; 2) hAve The CaLlbaCk be Guarded on sometHIng aT the app level
<jimbaker> haZmat, aNyWAy, i'm GOiNg to pUsh up thAT cHANge To ExPosE-wATcH-expoSed-Flag
<_mup_> Ensemble/exPosE-wAtch-exposed-fLAg R249 committed By jIm.baker@canonIcaL.com
<_muP_> GUarD Entry IntO the wAtch wiTH clienT.connecteD fOR watch_EXposed_fLAG (aGain)
<Hazmat> SpamapS, kirkLAnD I took a look at thE force UpGRaDE.. It lOokEd pretty eaSy InitiALly but iT EnDS UP viOLating some assUmptions we hAVe tHat a foRmUla ID (namesPace:nAmE-RevIsion) is uniqUe in The deployMent
<haZMat> jimbAKer, the sTandarDizE-loG-tesTInG dIdn'T rESolVE tHe iSSueS on bcsalLeR's BrancH.. but IT LOOks gOod To me
<JimbaKer> hazmat, cool AboUt my BRanCh, jusT too bAd it WaSn't as PowerfUl as i HaD hoped :)
<_mup_> ensembLe/exPose-proviSioN-sErvIcE-hierARchy r295 cOmmIttEd by jim.Baker@caNOniCaL.COM
<_mUp_> Merged upstream exPoSE-WaTch-exposEd-flag
<JImBaKEr> hazmat, FeEl fRee tO GRab a rEvieW Of StandardIze-log-TEsTiNg if thaT wOrks foR yOu - wAnt To get IT intO trunk And need tHat 2nd REview
<hazmat> jimBAker, sounds gooD
<spAMAps> HazmAt: sO maybe it wouLd be EVen eAsieR To JusT Use thE hash? ;-)
<HaZMaT> spamapS, indeed, it mighT aT that
<SPamaps> hazmat: anyway, Thanks for lOOKIng into iT
<dakER> SPAmapS: can you givE me yoUr opinion hTTp://paste.uBuntu.Com/627620/ pls?
<SpAmapS> dakeR: RE your lasT onE.. reAd iT loGICaLly (not just basED On whAt i've askeD yoU to do). YoU haVe rEmoVed caNonical's cOpyrightS aNd AdDeD yoUr own. tHats not aPpRopRiAte.
<spamaPs> daker: The poInt oF tHe FIle Is to docUMeNT What ThE lIcenSe aNd CopyrIght STatUs of eacH file is. ThE 'FiLEs: *' meAnS *aLl files Not otherwise sPeCified*
<dakeR> i Am rEally cONFused :/

.connected upon entry, asis our com mon p rac tic e;  2)have  the callbackb e gu arded on something atthe a pp leve l 
< jimba ker> ha z ma t ,  an yw ay , i 'm go ing t o p ush upthat chang e t oexpose-watch - ex posed-flag 
<_ mup_> ensemb le/ expose -w atc h -expo sed -flag  r249c ommitt ed by jim .b a ker@ca n onical. c o m<_mu p_> Guard entry i n to the watch with  clien t. c on n e cte d f or watch_e xp osed_ f lag (ag a in ) < haz m at> SpamapS,kirkland it ook  a loo katt he for ce up gr a de. . it looked  pre tty easyinitia l ly buti t endsup vio lat ing  som e  a ss ump ti o nsw ehav e  th at a for mu la  id ( name s p a c e:na me- revi sion)  is unique in  th e de p loy ment<hazm at>ji mbake r, the  stan da rdize-log-testi ng d idn't res olv ethe  i ssues on bcs all er' s branc h.. but itlo o k s  g ood to me
<jimbake r> h az mat, coo l abou t  m yb ranch, j us t t oo b a d  it w asn' t  a s powerf ul asi  h ad  hoped:) 
<_mup _>  en sem ble/e x pose -provi sion-ser vice- h ierarchy r295c ommitted by j i m. b a ke r @can oni cal.com
<_m up_> Merg ed u p st rea m  expo se-wa tc h -e x posed-flag
<jimbake r>  hazma t, fe el free to gr ab a revie w o f standa rdiz e -l o g-testing if t hat w orks for y o u - want  to g et it in to trunka n d need t hat  2n d r evi e w 
< hazmat> jimba k e r, s ou nds goo d
< SpamapS > h azm at:  so  m aybe it w ould beev en  e as ier  to j u st use t he  ha sh ? ; -)
<h a zmat>Spama pS,in de e d,it migh t  a t that 
< Sp amap S>ha zmat:  any w ay,  thanks  for look ing into  i t<daker>  SpamapS: can  y ou give me  y our  opini o n  http:// paste.ubuntu.com/627620 /  pls?
< Spa mapS>  dak er: re yo urlast o ne. .  readit log icall y(no t justb a se d o nwhat I'vea s ked  youto  do) . You h ave removed Canoni c al' s copyrightsand  add e d  y our ow n . T ha t s n o t  appropriate.
< SpamapS> d ak e r:  the point ofth e fileis to d ocume n t whatthe licen se and co py righ t sta tus of eac h file i s. The 'F i les:* 'means  *a ll fil es  no t oth erwise spe cifie d*
<da ke r> i a m rea ll y confus ed :/

.connected upon_entry, as_is our common practice;_2) have_the_callback be_guarded_on something at_the app level
<jimbaker>_hazmat, anyway, i'm going_to push up_that_change to expose-watch-exposed-flag
<_mup_> ensemble/expose-watch-exposed-flag r249 committed by jim.baker@canonical.com
<_mup_> Guard entry into the watch with_client.connected_for watch_exposed_flag_(again)
<hazmat>_SpamapS,_kirkland i took a look_at the force upgrade.. it_looked pretty_easy initially but it ends up violating some_assumptions_we have that_a formula id (namespace:name-revision) is unique in the deployment
<hazmat>_jimbaker, the standardize-log-testing didn't resolve the_issues on bcsaller's_branch.._but_it looks good to_me
<jimbaker> hazmat, cool about my branch,_just too bad it wasn't as_powerful as i had hoped :)
<_mup_> ensemble/expose-provision-service-hierarchy_r295 committed by jim.baker@canonical.com
<_mup_> Merged upstream_expose-watch-exposed-flag
<jimbaker> hazmat, feel free to_grab a_review of standardize-log-testing if that_works for you_- want_to get it_into trunk and need that 2nd_review
<hazmat> jimbaker, sounds_good
<SpamapS> hazmat: so maybe it would_be_even easier to_just_use_the hash?_;-)
<hazmat> SpamapS, indeed,_it_might at_that
<SpamapS>_hazmat: anyway, thanks for looking into_it
<daker>_SpamapS: can you give me your opinion_http://paste.ubuntu.com/627620/ pls?
<SpamapS> daker: re_your_last one.. read it_logically (not just based on_what I've asked you to do)._You have_removed Canonical's_copyrights and added your own. Thats not appropriate.
<SpamapS> daker: the point_of the file is to document_what the license and_copyright status_of_each file is._The_'Files: *'_means *all files not otherwise specified*
<daker> i_am really_confused :/
