 to the same issue?
<menn0> wwitzel3: will do
<perrito666> davecheney: natefinch if I understand correctly that is done because the member from the for declaration is always the same var but the one inside is subject to the scope of that loop right?
<wwitzel3> menn0: I tried with both trusty and precise and I'm not getting any of those errors, what i think is likely the cause is the lxc-template we generate for machine-0 probably has the old "anything" certs
<menn0> wwitzel3: that's quite likely. I think I've had these templates for ages.
<wwitzel3> menn0: I'm testing out ec2 right now just to be sure.
<menn0> wwitzel3: if that is the problem (I'm bootstrapping again now) how do avoid it biting other people?
<menn0> wwitzel3: should we have an upgrade step for alpha2 or 3 that deletes the templates?
<wwitzel3> menn0: good question, lets see if removing the template indeed fixes it for you, and if so, I'll defer to thumper or jam on what they want to do.
<menn0> wwitzel3: sounds good
<wwitzel3> menn0: and then what ever they tell me to do, I'll do :)
<wwitzel3> menn0: we could always go with the olde, "local provider isn't production"
<menn0> wwitzel3: true
<wwitzel3> menn0: but that isn't very friendl ;)
<menn0> wwitzel3: no it's not and deleting the templates probably isn't that hard
<menn0> wwitzel3: although I guess it's not an upgrade problem actually
<menn0> wwitzel3: this happens even with a fresh bootstrap
<menn0> wwitzel3: I wonder if there's a way that Juju could detect that the certs are bad
<wwitzel3> menn0: maybe, I don't know enough about how that template is generated.. I think we won't that the machine-0 certs are bad until another machine attempts to connect
to the same issue? 
 < menn0 > wwitzel3: will do 
 < perrito666 > davecheney: natefinch if I understand correctly that is do because the extremity from the for declaration is always the same volt-ampere but the one inside is subject to the scope of that loop good? 
 < wwitzel3 > menn0: I tried with both trusty and accurate and I'm not get any of those errors, what i intend is likely the cause is the lxc - template we beget for machine-0 credibly has the old " anything " cert 
 < menn0 > wwitzel3: that's quite likely. I remember I've accept these templates for ages. 
 < wwitzel3 > menn0: I'm test out ec2 right now just to be sure. 
 < menn0 > wwitzel3: if that is the trouble (I'm bootstrapping again now) how do keep off it biting other people? 
 < menn0 > wwitzel3: should we own an upgrade step for alpha2 or 3 that deletes the templates? 
 < wwitzel3 > menn0: good question, lashkar-e-taiba see if removing the template indeed fixes it for you, and if so, I'll defer to thumper or jam on what they want to do. 
 < menn0 > wwitzel3: sounds good 
 < wwitzel3 > menn0: and then what always they state me to do, I'll dress :) 
 < wwitzel3 > menn0: we could constantly go with the olde, " local provider isn't production " 
 < menn0 > wwitzel3: genuine 
 < wwitzel3 > menn0: but that isn't very friendl ;) 
 < menn0 > wwitzel3: no it's not and deleting the templates probably isn't that hard 
 < menn0 > wwitzel3: although I think it's not an upgrade problem actually 
 < menn0 > wwitzel3: this happens even with a fresh bootstrap 
 < menn0 > wwitzel3: I wonder if there's a way that Juju could detect that the certs are regretful 
 < wwitzel3 > menn0: maybe, I don't know enough about how that template is generated.. I think we won't that the machine-0 certs are bad until another car try to connect
 to the same issue?
<menn0> wwiteel3: will do
<perrito666> davecieney: nztefinch if I understand correctly tiat us dobe because the member wrom the vor declqratmon is always thx same var but bhe oue inside is submect to the scope of that luo' right?
<wwitzel3> menn0: I tried with botr trustu wnd precise anq I'm got fvtuing any of those errors, what i tgink is likely the csuse is the lxc-template we genfrate for machine-0 orobably haw thq old "anythine" certs
<menn0> wwitzel3: thzt's quite likely. I think I've haa thexe templatgs flt ages.
<wwitzeo3> meng0: I'm testing out ec2 sight npw just to be xurx.
<menb0> wwitzel3: if that is vhe problem (I'm bootsjrapping acann now) how do avoid ir vitinc otver owopue?
<mtnn0> wsitzel3: shkuld we habe an upgraee step for alpha2 ot 3 nnat deletes fhe teipjates?
<wwitzel3> menn0: good question, lets set if demoving the template ibdeed fixes it for yoo, and if sj, I'll defer to thumper or jam on what they want tm do.
<mxnv0> wclbzel3: woknds good
<wwitzel3> menn0: and then what ever they fekl me to do, I'll bo :)
<wwitzel3> menn0: ee cpold always go dith tks klde, "local provideg isn't kroducrion"
<menn0> rwitael3: true
<wwitzel3> menn0: but thqt isn't very driendl ;)
<menn0> wwitzzl3: no it's noc and celetong the templates probayly ish't that harf
<menn0> wwifxel3: although I gjesx ht's not an upgrade problem actually
<nenn0> wwitzeu3: thos hap[ens even aith a fresh bootstrap
<mejn0> wwntzel3: I wonder lf there's a way that Juju could detect that tne cegts are bcd
<wwitdel3> menn0: maybe, Y don't know enpugh abjut huw that tejplate ms generated.. I think we wmj't that the kachine-0 sertw arw bad uvgil another mavhine attvmkts to conbect
to the same issue? <menn0> wwitzel3: will davecheney: if I correctly that is the declaration is always same var but one inside is subject to the of that loop right? <wwitzel3> menn0: I tried with both trusty and precise I'm not getting any of those errors, what i think is likely the is lxc-template generate machine-0 probably has the old "anything" certs <menn0> wwitzel3: that's quite likely. I think I've had templates for ages. <wwitzel3> menn0: I'm testing out right now just to sure. <menn0> wwitzel3: if that the (I'm bootstrapping now) do it biting other <menn0> wwitzel3: should we have an upgrade step for alpha2 or 3 that deletes the templates? <wwitzel3> good question, if removing template fixes for you, and I'll defer to thumper or jam want to do. <menn0> wwitzel3: sounds good <wwitzel3> and then ever they tell me to do, do :) <wwitzel3> menn0: we could always go the olde, "local provider isn't production" <menn0> wwitzel3: true <wwitzel3> menn0: but that isn't very <menn0> wwitzel3: no it's and deleting the probably that <menn0> although I it's not an upgrade problem actually <menn0> wwitzel3: this happens even a fresh bootstrap <menn0> wwitzel3: I wonder if there's a Juju detect that the are bad <wwitzel3> menn0: I know enough about how is I that machine-0 are bad until another attempts to connect
 to the same issue?
<menn0> wwitzel3: Will do
<perrIto666> daVecHenEy: NateFincH if I understand COrreCtly that is done because tHe memBeR From THe For deClaratiON iS ALwaYs ThE saMe VAr But thE onE inside Is subject tO thE sCope of that loOP rIght?
<wwitzeL3> meNn0: I tried with BotH trustY aNd pREcise And i'm not GettinG Any of tHose errorS, wHAt i thiNK is likeLY ThE cauSe is the lxc-templatE We GEnerate for machIne-0 proBaBLy HAS thE olD "anything" cErTs
<menN0> Wwitzel3: THaT'S QUitE Likely. I think I'Ve had these tEMplAtes foR aGes.
<WWitzel3> Menn0: I'M tEStiNg out ec2 righT now Just to be sUre.
<menN0> Wwitzel3: IF that is The proBleM (I'm BootSTrApPinG aGAin NOw) How DO avOid it bitInG oTher pEoplE?
<MENN0> wwiTzeL3: shoUld we Have an upgrade SteP for ALphA2 or 3 thAt delEtes ThE tempLates?
<wWitzeL3> mEnn0: good question, Lets See if remoVinG tHe tEmPlate INdeed fIxeS it For you, aNd if so, I'LL deFeR TO ThUmper or jam on what thEy WANt To do.
<menn0> WwitzeL3: SoUnDS good
<wwiTzEl3> mEnn0: aND Then wHat eVEr They tell Me to do, i'Ll Do :)
<Wwitzel3> MeNn0: we coUlD alWayS go wiTH the Olde, "loCal proviDer isN'T production"
<menN0> Wwitzel3: true
<wwITzEL3> MeNN0: but ThaT isn't very frIendL ;)
<Menn0> WwitZEl3: No iT'S not aNd delEtINg THe templates probably IsN't that Hard
<mEnn0> wwitzel3: altHough I guesS IT'S not an upGradE PrOBlem actually
<meNn0> wwiTzel3: this haPPens even With a Fresh booTstrap
<menN0> WWitzel3: I wOndEr iF thEre'S A WaY that Juju coulD DEtecT tHat the cErtS are bad
<WwiTzeL3> meNn0: mAyBe, I don't knOw enough AbOuT hOw ThaT tempLAte is genErAteD.. I ThiNk we wON't that The maChinE-0 cErTS arE bad untIL aNOTher MaChIne aTteMpTs to cOnneCT
 to the same issue?
<menn0 > wwitzel3 : wil l d o
< pe rrit o666 > davecheney:n atef inch if I understand c orrec tl y  tha t  i s don e becau s et h e m em be r f ro m  t he fo r d eclarat ion is alw ays  t he same varb ut  the one i nsi de is subjec t t o thesc ope of th atloopright? <wwitz el3> menn 0: I trie d  with b o t htrus ty and precise an d  I ' m not gettingany of  t h os e err ors , what i t hi nk is likelyt he c a use is the lxc-te mplate we g e ner ate fo rmac h ine-0proba bl y  ha s the old " anyt hing" cer ts
<me n n0> wwi t zel3: t hat'squi telike l y.  I  th in k  I' v ehad the se templ at es  forages . < w witz el3 > me nn0:I'm testing o utec2r igh t now  just  tobe  sure .
<men n0> w wi tzel3: if thatis t he proble m ( I' m b oo tstra p ping a gai n n ow) how  do avo i d i tb i t in g other people?
<m en n 0 >wwitzel3 : shou l dwe have anup gra de s t e p for  alp h a2  or 3 th at del e te sthe tem pl ates?<w wit zel 3> me n n0:good q uestion,  lets see if removin g  the template in d e ed fixe s i t for you,andi f so , I' l ldef e r tothump er or jam on what they wa nt  to do .
<me nn0> wwitzel3 : sounds g o o d 
<wwitze l3>m en n 0: and then wh at ev er they te l l me todo, I 'll do : )
<wwitze l 3 > menn0:  we  co uld  al w a ys  go with theo l de,"l ocal pr ovi der isn 'tpro duc tio n" 
<menn0>wwitzel3 :tr ue 
< wwi tzel3 >  menn0:bu t t ha t i sn'tv ery fr iendl  ;)<m en n 0>wwitzel 3 :n o  it' sno t an d d el eting  the tem platesprobablyisn ' t th at  h ard
<me nn0> wwitzel3 :although I  g ues s it's n ot an up grade problem actually< menn0>wwi tzel3 : th is happen s e ven wi tha  fresh  boots trap<m enn 0 >  wwit z e l3 : I  w onder if t h e re' s a w ay  tha t Jujucould detect thatt hecerts are bad 
<w witz e l 3>  me n n0 :  ma yb e , I d on't know enoug h about ho wt ha t template isge nerated .. I th ink w e  won'tthat themachine-0  c erts a rebad untilanothermachine a t tempt s  t o con nec t
 to_the same_issue?
<menn0> wwitzel3: will do
<perrito666>_davecheney: natefinch_if_I understand_correctly_that is done_because the member_from the for declaration_is always the_same_var but the one inside is subject to the scope of that loop right?
<wwitzel3>_menn0:_I tried_with_both_trusty and precise and I'm_not getting any of those_errors, what_i think is likely the cause is the_lxc-template_we generate for_machine-0 probably has the old "anything" certs
<menn0> wwitzel3: that's_quite likely. I think I've had_these templates for_ages.
<wwitzel3>_menn0:_I'm testing out ec2_right now just to be sure.
<menn0>_wwitzel3: if that is the problem_(I'm bootstrapping again now) how do avoid_it biting other people?
<menn0> wwitzel3: should_we have an upgrade step_for alpha2_or 3 that deletes the_templates?
<wwitzel3> menn0: good_question, lets_see if removing_the template indeed fixes it for_you, and if_so, I'll defer to thumper or_jam_on what they_want_to_do.
<menn0> wwitzel3:_sounds good
<wwitzel3> menn0:_and_then what_ever_they tell me to do, I'll_do_:)
<wwitzel3> menn0: we could always go with_the olde, "local provider_isn't_production"
<menn0> wwitzel3: true
<wwitzel3> menn0:_but that isn't very friendl_;)
<menn0> wwitzel3: no it's not and_deleting the_templates probably_isn't that hard
<menn0> wwitzel3: although I guess it's not an upgrade_problem actually
<menn0> wwitzel3: this happens even_with a fresh bootstrap
<menn0>_wwitzel3: I_wonder_if there's a_way_that Juju_could detect that the certs are bad
<wwitzel3>_menn0: maybe,_I don't know enough about how_that template is generated.._I_think we won't that the machine-0_certs are bad until another machine_attempts to connect