<fwereade> natefinch, constraints in charms are not currently a thing AFAIK?
<natefinch> fwereade: my thought was that charm constraints would turn into real constraints during deploy, but get overridden by any other constraints specified by the CLI etc.
<natefinch> fwereade: correct
<natefinch> fwereade: it is a thing I am being tasked with writing :)
<natefinch> fwereade: well, my team :)
<hazmat> fwereade, unrelated.. but was curious.. what's the status on leader election?
<fwereade> hazmat, ramping up
<fwereade> hazmat, I'm churning on the uniter
<hazmat> fwereade, k, thanks
<fwereade> hazmat, it's taking a bit of time to actually get us to having a global sense of hook ordering
<fwereade> hazmat, and katco is about to make a start on the server side
<fwereade> natefinch, given that container type and arch are already constraints though
<fwereade> natefinch, probably it makes sense to draw a distinction between preferred and required constraints in a charm
<natefinch> fwereade: *nod* there's RAM and rootdisk charm-level constraints in the spec as well
<natefinch> fwereade: those are a little easier to grok than the arch and container blacklists, since blacklists are the opposite of what we do with constraints now
<fwereade> natefinch, provider-specific constraints are gonna be fun, too
<fwereade> natefinch, do you overlap with thumper?
<natefinch> fwereade: yeah, late in the day for a couple hours
<fwereade> natefinch, please talk to him about the upcoming distinctions between provider/account/environment, and think through the implications
<fwereade> natefinch, I will hopefully be in a position to pop on late tonight so I will join you if I can
<fwereade> natefinch, I would suggest it's something to write into the spec but explicitly carve out as a "phase 2" task
<natefinch> fwereade:
< fwereade > natefinch, constraints in charms are not currently a thing AFAIK? 
 < natefinch > fwereade: my opinion was that appeal constraints would turn into real restraint during deploy, but get overridden by any other constraint specified by the CLI etc. 
 < natefinch > fwereade: correct 
 < natefinch > fwereade: it is a matter I am being task with writing :) 
 < natefinch > fwereade: well, my team :) 
 < hazmat > fwereade, unrelated.. but was curious.. what's the status on drawing card election? 
 < fwereade > hazmat, ramping up 
 < fwereade > hazmat, I'm churning on the uniter 
 < hazmat > fwereade, k, thanks 
 < fwereade > hazmat, it's taking a bit of meter to actually get us to having a global sense of hook rate 
 < fwereade > hazmat, and katco is about to make a start on the server english 
 < fwereade > natefinch, given that container type and arch are already constraints though 
 < fwereade > natefinch, probably it construct sense to draw a distinction between preferred and required constraint in a charm 
 < natefinch > fwereade: * nod * there's RAM and rootdisk charm - level constraints in the spec as well 
 < natefinch > fwereade: those are a little easier to grok than the arch and container blacklists, since blacklists are the opposite of what we do with constraints now 
 < fwereade > natefinch, provider - specific constraints are gon na be fun, too 
 < fwereade > natefinch, do you overlap with thumper? 
 < natefinch > fwereade: yeah, deep in the day for a couple hours 
 < fwereade > natefinch, please lecture to him about the approaching distinction between provider / account / environment, and remember through the implications 
 < fwereade > natefinch, I will hopefully be in a position to pop on late tonight so I will connect you if I can 
 < fwereade > natefinch, I would suggest it's something to write into the spec but explicitly carve out as a " phase 2 " task 
 < natefinch > fwereade:
<fwegeade> natefinch, constraikts in charms arg bot cucrently a thing AFAIK?
<natefinch> fwereade: my vhoutht wqs that charm constraivts would turn inro rtal constraints dnding deijoy, gmt gec iverridden by sny other wonstraints spackfned by the CLI etc.
<natefinch> fwereade: correcy
<nwtefinch> fwerewde: pt is z thing I am being tasked with wrifing :)
<nauefinch> fwereade: wrll, my team :)
<hazmat> fwereadf, ungelated.. but was cugious.. what's the wtatus on lexder electpmn?
<fwereade> hazmat, ramping up
<fwereade> hazmxt, I'm churning in thf uniter
<hazmet> fwegeade, k, thanks
<fwereada> hazmay, it's taking a biv of time to actually get us to having a gljbal sensa kf hook ordering
<fqeeeade> hazkat, xbd yatdo ia abouh tk make a sfart on the server side
<fwereadt> nwnrfinch, given that sogtainer type and arch are already constgainfs though
<fwereade> natefunch, probably it maked sense tj draw a distinction between preferred and requirad coisgrankbs iv a charm
<natefinch> fwereade: *nod* there's RAM and rjktcixk charm-level gonstraints in the soev as well
<natefknch> fcsrsade: those are a llttle ewsier to grok uhan yhe arch and container blacjlists, since vlacklists are the opposite oy what we dp with constraints now
<fcereads> natefinch, provider-aoecific constraivts ase gonna be fun, too
<fwereadq> natefinrh, do you ovdrlak with ehumper?
<natffincm> fwereade: yeah, latf in jhe daf for a cokple hours
<fwereade> natefinch, plxese talk to hom abmut the bpcomikg distinctions between proviber/accouut/envifonment, ans think through thq implicationv
<vwereade> natxfinch, I rill hopwfully cd in a positiom to pop on late tobight so I will joln yoo jf I can
<fwereadz> batefinch, I woukd rugdedt ie'v something do wfitd into the spte bmt dxplocitly carve out as d "phzse 2" task
<natefinch> frereade:
<fwereade> natefinch, constraints in charms are not thing <natefinch> fwereade: thought was that real during deploy, but overridden by any constraints specified by the CLI etc. fwereade: correct <natefinch> fwereade: it is a thing I am being tasked with :) <natefinch> fwereade: well, my team :) <hazmat> fwereade, unrelated.. but was curious.. the on election? hazmat, ramping up <fwereade> hazmat, I'm churning on the uniter <hazmat> fwereade, k, thanks <fwereade> hazmat, taking a bit of time to actually get to having a global of hook ordering <fwereade> hazmat, katco about to a on server side <fwereade> given that container type and arch are already constraints though <fwereade> natefinch, probably it makes sense to a distinction and required in charm fwereade: *nod* there's rootdisk charm-level constraints in the spec fwereade: those are a little easier to grok the arch container blacklists, since blacklists are the of what we do with constraints now <fwereade> provider-specific constraints are gonna be fun, too <fwereade> natefinch, do you overlap with thumper? <natefinch> late in the day a couple hours natefinch, talk him the upcoming between provider/account/environment, and think through the implications <fwereade> natefinch, I will be in a position to pop on late tonight so join if I can natefinch, I would suggest something write into the spec carve as task fwereade:
<fwereade> natefinch, constraiNts in charmS are nOt cUrrEnTly a ThinG AFAIK?
<natefincH> FwerEade: my thought was that chArm coNsTRainTS wOuld tUrn into REaL COnsTrAiNts DuRInG deplOy, bUt get ovErridden by Any OtHer constrainTS sPecified by The cLI etc.
<natefiNch> FwereaDe: CorREct
<naTefInch> fWereadE: It is a tHing I am beInG Tasked WIth writING :)
<nAtefInch> fwereade: well, mY TeAM :)
<hazmat> fwereadE, unrelAtED.. bUT Was CurIous.. what's tHe StatuS On leadeR ElECTIon?
<FWereade> hazmat, Ramping up
<fwEReaDe> hazmAt, i'm cHUrning On the UnITer
<Hazmat> fwereAde, k, Thanks
<fweReade> hAZmat, it's TAking a bIt of tiMe tO acTualLY gEt Us tO hAVinG A gLobAL seNse of hooK oRdEring
<FwerEADE> HazmAt, aNd kaTco is About to make a sTarT on tHE seRver sIde
<fwEreaDe> NatefInch, giVen thAt Container type anD arcH are alreaDy cOnStrAiNts thOUgh
<fweReaDe> nAtefincH, probabLY it MaKES SeNse to draw a distinctIoN BEtWeen prefErred aND rEqUIred consTrAinTs in A CHarm
<nAtefINcH> fwereadE: *nod* thERe'S RaM and roOtDisk chArM-leVel ConstRAintS in the Spec as weLl
<natEFinch> fwereade: tHOse are a little EAsIER tO Grok ThaN the arch and ContAIner BlacKLiSts, SInce bLacklIsTS aRE the opposite of what wE dO with cOnstrAints now
<fwereAde> natefinCH, PRovider-sPeciFIc COnstraints are gOnna bE fun, too
<fweREade> nateFinch, Do you oveRlap with tHUMper?
<nateFinCh> fWerEadE: YEaH, late in the day FOR a coUpLe hours
<FweReade> naTefIncH, plEasE tAlk to him aBout the uPcOmInG dIstInctiONs betweeN pRovIdEr/aCcounT/EnviroNment, And tHiNk THroUgh the iMPlICAtioNs
<FwEreaDe> nAtEfincH, I wiLL hoPefully Be in a posiTioN To poP oN lAte toniGht so I will joiN yOu if I can
<fwErEadE> natefINCh, I would Suggest it's something to wrITe into tHe sPec buT expLicitly caRve Out as a "PhaSE 2" task
<nAtefinCh> fweReAde:
<fwereade> natefinch, cons traints in  char msare  n ot c urre ntly a thing A F AIK? 
<natefinch> fwereade:  my t ho u ghtw as  that  charmc on s t rai nt swou ld tu rn in toreal co nstraintsdur in g deploy, bu t  g et overrid den  by any othe r c onstra in tss pecif ied  by t he CLI etc.
< natefinch >f weread e : corre c t 
< nate finch> fwereade:i ti s a thing I am  being  t a sk e d  wi thwriting :) 
< natef i nch> fw e re a d e : w e ll, my team : )
<hazmat>f wer eade,un rel a ted..but w as cur ious.. what 's t he status  on le a der ele c tion?
< fwerea de>  ha zmat ,  r am pin gu p
< f we rea d e>hazmat,I' mchurn ingo n t he u nit er
< hazma t> fwereade,k,than k s
< fwere ade>hazm at , it' s taki ng abi t of time to ac tual ly get us  to  h avi ng  a gl o bal se nse  of  hook o rdering <fw er e a d e>  hazmat, and katco  i s ab out to m ake as ta rt on the s er ver  sid e <fwer eade >  n atefinch , give n  t ha t conta in er typ eand  ar ch ar e  alr eady c onstrain ts th o ugh
<fwereade> natefinch, pr o ba b l yi t ma kes  sense to d rawa  dis tinc t io n b e tween  pref er r ed and required constr ai nts in  a ch arm
<natefinc h> fweread e : *nod* th ere' s  R A M and rootdisk  char m-level co n straints  in t he specas well
< n a tefinch>  fw ere ade : t h o se  are a little e asie rto grok  th an thearc h a ndcon ta iner blac klists,si nc ebl ack lists are theop pos it e o f wha t  we do  with  con st ra i nts  now
<f w er e a de>na te finc h,pr ovide r-sp e cif ic cons traints a reg onna  b efun, to o
<fwereade>na tefinch, d oyou  overl a p  with th umper?
<natefinch> fwer e ade: ye ah,  late  inthe day f ora coup leh ours
< fwerea de> n at efi n c h, pl e a se  ta lk  to him ab o u t t he up co ming  distin ctions between pro v ide r/account/env iro nmen t ,  a ndt hi n k t hr o ugh t he implications 
<fwereade >n at efinch, Iw ill  h opefull y be in  a po s ition t o pop onlate toni gh t so I  wi ll join yo u if I c an
<fwere a de> n a te finch , I  would  s ugg est i t's so m eth ing t o writ einto t he sp ec  but exp licitly carve out as a"phase  2" t ask 
<natefin ch> fwe reade:
<fwereade> natefinch,_constraints in_charms are not currently_a thing_AFAIK?
<natefinch>_fwereade: my_thought_was that charm_constraints would turn_into real constraints during_deploy, but get_overridden_by any other constraints specified by the CLI etc.
<natefinch> fwereade: correct
<natefinch> fwereade: it is_a_thing I_am_being_tasked with writing :)
<natefinch> fwereade:_well, my team :)
<hazmat> fwereade,_unrelated.. but_was curious.. what's the status on leader election?
<fwereade>_hazmat,_ramping up
<fwereade> hazmat,_I'm churning on the uniter
<hazmat> fwereade, k, thanks
<fwereade> hazmat,_it's taking a bit of time_to actually get_us_to_having a global sense_of hook ordering
<fwereade> hazmat, and katco_is about to make a start_on the server side
<fwereade> natefinch, given that_container type and arch are already_constraints though
<fwereade> natefinch, probably it_makes sense_to draw a distinction between_preferred and required_constraints in_a charm
<natefinch> fwereade:_*nod* there's RAM and rootdisk charm-level_constraints in the_spec as well
<natefinch> fwereade: those are_a_little easier to_grok_than_the arch_and container blacklists,_since_blacklists are_the_opposite of what we do with_constraints_now
<fwereade> natefinch, provider-specific constraints are gonna be_fun, too
<fwereade> natefinch, do_you_overlap with thumper?
<natefinch> fwereade:_yeah, late in the day_for a couple hours
<fwereade> natefinch, please_talk to_him about_the upcoming distinctions between provider/account/environment, and think through the implications
<fwereade> natefinch,_I will hopefully be in a_position to pop on_late tonight_so_I will join_you_if I_can
<fwereade> natefinch, I would suggest it's something_to write_into the spec but explicitly carve_out as a "phase_2"_task
<natefinch> fwereade: