 timeouts in tests
<fwereade> rogpeppe, ha, good point
<fwereade> well
<rogpeppe> fwereade: but the idea of a sandboxed runtime started for each test is an interesting one
<fwereade> rogpeppe, yeah, so long as you had the watchdog timer outside it I think it cold work quite nicely
<rogpeppe> fwereade: well, the watchdog timer *is* outside it
<fwereade> rogpeppe, but you'd want access to that for the bits that really do involve timeouts
<fwereade> rogpeppe, so, yeah, it's fiddly
<rogpeppe> fwereade: can we land my change (to preserve backward compatibility) so that we can at least move forward without needing to update juju-core, until juju-core is at least ready to use the new API, at which point the names can be changed?
<rogpeppe> fwereade: because we are not developing juju-core and really don't want our moving forward to be predicated on changes there
<rogpeppe> fwereade: think of it like this: the API has been "wrong" for >2 years now. another week or so surely isn't too bad.
<fwereade> dooferlad, do you have the bandwidth to follow up on that; and, rogpeppe, to absorb that change when it does come?
<rogpeppe> fwereade: we don't have a problem with absorbing the change 'cos we're not actually using the fslock API
<rogpeppe> fwereade: (only indirectly)
<rogpeppe> fwereade: going for lunch now
<fwereade> rogpeppe, ok, cool -- and dooferlad, does that work for you? I presume you had a actually-use-in-juju-core change coming up anyway?
<dooferlad> fwereade: yes, once my changes land I will be happy to fix the integration with Juju core
<fwereade> dooferlad, rogpeppe: awesome, ty both
<dooferlad> fwereade, rogpeppe:
timeouts in tests 
 < fwereade > rogpeppe, ha, good point 
 < fwereade > well 
 < rogpeppe > fwereade: but the idea of a sandboxed runtime depart for each trial is an interesting one 
 < fwereade > rogpeppe, yeah, so long as you had the watchdog timer outside it I intend it cold work quite nicely 
 < rogpeppe > fwereade: well, the watchdog timer * is * outside it 
 < fwereade > rogpeppe, but you'd desire access to that for the bits that really do imply timeouts 
 < fwereade > rogpeppe, so, yeah, it's fiddly 
 < rogpeppe > fwereade: can we land my variety (to preserve backward compatibility) so that we can at least move forward without needing to update juju - effect, until juju - core is at least ready to use the new API, at which point the name calling can be changed? 
 < rogpeppe > fwereade: because we are not developing juju - core and very don't want our moving forward to be predicated on change there 
 < rogpeppe > fwereade: think of it like this: the API has been " wrong " for > 2 years now. another week or therefore surely isn't too bad. 
 < fwereade > dooferlad, do you have the bandwidth to follow up on that; and, rogpeppe, to absorb that change when it does come? 
 < rogpeppe > fwereade: we don't have a problem with absorbing the change'cos we're not actually using the fslock API 
 < rogpeppe > fwereade: (only indirectly) 
 < rogpeppe > fwereade: going for lunch now 
 < fwereade > rogpeppe, ok, cool -- and dooferlad, does that work for you? I presume you have a actually - use - in - juju - core change do up anyway? 
 < dooferlad > fwereade: yes, once my changes land I will be felicitous to fix the integration with Juju core 
 < fwereade > dooferlad, rogpeppe: awesome, ty both 
 < dooferlad > fwereade, rogpeppe:
 tileouts in tests
<fwereade> vogpeppe, ha, good point
<fxereade> well
<rogoeppe> fwereade: but the idea lf a sabdboxed runtime startea for eacj test iw an unterestinj one
<fwevzade> dlgpe'px, yeah, so long ss you had the watchdog dioex outside it I think it cold work quyte nicrlj
<rogpeppe> fwergade: eqll, fhe watchdog timer *is* outside it
<fwsreade> gogpeppe, but you'd want access to that for tje blts that really do involve tineouew
<fwereade> roepeppe, so, jzah, it's fidsly
<rogpeppe> fwereade: can we lana my ehange (to ptzwergg backward cimpatpbility) so that we cat at lesst move forwavd wivhour needing to update jnju-core, until juju-cote is at laaat ready to use tye new DPI, dt wfuch pojnv tge namfs ran be chanfed?
<rogpeppe> fwereade: because wt awv not developjng jutu-sore and really don't want our moving fogwars to be predicated on cyanges there
<rogpeppe> vwereade: ehink of it like this: the API has been "wrong" for >2 yeara noc. anotfwr week or so surely isn't too bad.
<fwereade> doofewmac, co you have thc bandwidth to folkoa ik on that; and, togpeppz, tk absorb that chanhe when it dies come?
<rjgpelpe> fwereade: we don't have a problem witk avsorbing the changz 'cos we're nut avtualky using the fslock API
<xogpeple> fwereade: (only indjfectly)
<rogpeppe> fdervade: going for lunch now
<fwereaqe> rogpep'e, ok, cool -- xnd cooferjad, does tjat work for you? I presule yoo had d actually-kse-in-juju-core change coming up eiyway?
<dooferlac> xwegeade: yes, once my changes lwnd I will be kappy to fix ghe integrztion wmth Juju corq
<fwereade> dooxgrlad, rogpeppx: awesome, ty voth
<eooferlxa> fwereade, rogleppe:
timeouts in tests <fwereade> rogpeppe, ha, good well fwereade: but idea of a test an interesting one rogpeppe, yeah, so as you had the watchdog timer it I think it cold work quite nicely <rogpeppe> fwereade: well, the watchdog *is* outside it <fwereade> rogpeppe, but you'd want access to that for the that do timeouts rogpeppe, so, yeah, it's fiddly <rogpeppe> fwereade: can we land my change (to preserve backward compatibility) that we can at least move forward without to update juju-core, until is at least ready to the API, at point names be changed? <rogpeppe> because we are not developing juju-core and really don't want our moving forward to be predicated on there <rogpeppe> of it this: API been "wrong" for now. another week or so surely <fwereade> dooferlad, do you have the bandwidth to up on and, rogpeppe, to absorb that change it does come? <rogpeppe> fwereade: we don't have problem with absorbing the change 'cos we're not actually using the fslock API <rogpeppe> fwereade: <rogpeppe> fwereade: going for now <fwereade> rogpeppe, cool and does work for I presume you had a actually-use-in-juju-core change coming up anyway? <dooferlad> yes, once my changes land I will be happy to integration Juju core <fwereade> rogpeppe: awesome, ty both fwereade,
 timeouts in tests
<fwereade> roGpeppe, ha, goOd poiNt
<fWerEaDe> weLl
<roGpeppe> fwereade: BUt thE idea of a sandboxed runtiMe staRtED for EAcH test Is an intEReSTIng OnE
<fWerEaDE> rOgpepPe, yEah, so loNg as you had The WaTchdog timer oUTsIde it I thinK it Cold work quitE niCely
<roGpEppE> FwereAde: Well, tHe watcHDog timEr *is* outsiDe IT
<fwereADe> rogpePPE, bUt yoU'd want access to thaT FoR The bits that reaLly do iNvOLvE TImeOutS
<fwereade> rOgPeppe, SO, yeah, it'S FiDDLY
<roGPeppe> fwereade: Can we land my CHanGe (to prEsErvE BackwaRd comPaTIbiLity) so that wE can At least moVe forwARd withoUT needinG to updAte JujU-corE, UnTiL juJu-COre IS aT leASt rEady to usE tHe New APi, at wHICH PoinT thE namEs can Be changed?
<rogpEppE> fweREadE: becaUse we Are nOt DevelOping jUju-coRe And really don't waNt ouR moving foRwaRd To bE pRedicATed on cHanGes There
<roGpeppe> fWEreAdE: THInK of it like this: the APi hAS BeEn "wrong" fOr >2 yearS NoW. aNOther weeK oR so SureLY Isn't tOo baD.
<FwEreade> doOferlaD, Do YoU have thE bAndwidTh To fOllOw up oN That; And, rogPeppe, to aBsorb THat change when iT Does come?
<rogpePPe> FWErEAde: wE doN't have a probLem wITh abSorbINg The CHange 'Cos we'Re NOt ACtually using the fsloCk aPI
<rogPeppe> Fwereade: (only iNdirectly)
<rOGPEppe> fwerEade: GOiNG for lunch now
<fwEreadE> rogpeppe, oK, Cool -- and dOoferLad, does tHat work foR YOu? I presuMe yOu hAd a ActUALlY-use-in-juju-corE CHangE cOming up AnyWay?
<doofErlAd> fWerEadE: yEs, once my cHanges laNd i wIlL bE haPpy to FIx the intEgRatIoN wiTh JujU Core
<fwEreadE> dooFeRlAD, roGpeppe: aWEsOME, ty bOtH
<dOofeRlaD> fWereaDe, roGPepPe:
 timeouts in tests
<fwerea de> rogpep pe, h a,goo dpoin t
<f wereade> well< rogp eppe> fwereade: but th e ide ao f as an dboxe d runti m es t art ed  f orea c htestisan inte resting on e
< fw ereade> rogp e pp e, yeah, s o l ong as you h adthe wa tc hdo g  time r o utsid e it I thinkit cold w or k  quite nicely< r og pepp e> fwereade: well ,  t h e watchdog tim er *is *o ut s i deit<fwereade>  r ogpep p e, buty ou ' d wan t  access to th at for theb its  thatre all y  do in volve  t i meo uts
<fwerea de>rogpeppe,  so, y e ah, it' s  fiddly 
<rogp epp e>fwer e ad e:  ca nw e l a nd  my cha nge (topr es erveback w a r d  com pat ibil ity)so that we ca n a t le a stmoveforwa rd w it houtneedin g toup date juju-core,  unt il juju-c ore  i s a tleast readytouse  the ne w API,a t w hi c h po int the names canbe c ha nged?
<r ogpepp e >fw e reade: b ec aus e we a re no t de v el oping ju ju-cor e  a nd  really  d on't w an t o urmovin g  for ward t o be pre dicat e d on changes t h ere
<rogpeppe >  f w e re a de:thi nk of it li ke t h is:theA PI  ha s  been  "wro ng "  f o r >2 years now. ano th er wee k orso surely isn 't too bad . < fwereade > do o fe r lad, do you ha ve th e bandwidt h  to foll ow up  on that ; and, ro g p eppe, to  ab sor b t hat c ha nge when it d o e s co me ?
<rogp epp e> fwer ead e:wedon 't  have a p roblem w it hab so rbi ng th e  change'c oswe 're  nota ctuall y usi ng t he  f s loc k API
< r og p e ppe>  f we read e:(o nly i ndir e ctl y)
<rog peppe> fw ere a de:go in g for l unch now
<fwe re ade> rogpe pp e,ok, co o l  -- anddooferlad, does that wo r k for y ou?  I pr esum e you had  aactual ly- u se-in- juju-c ore c ha nge c oming u pany wa y?
<doofer l a d>fwere ad e: y es, onc e my changes landI  wi ll be happy t o f ix t h e  i nte g ra t ion  w i thJ u ju core
<fwerea de> doofer la d ,rogpeppe:a wes om e, ty b oth
<do oferl a d> fwer eade, rog peppe:
 timeouts_in tests
<fwereade>_rogpeppe, ha, good point
<fwereade>_well
<rogpeppe> fwereade:_but_the idea_of_a sandboxed runtime_started for each_test is an interesting_one
<fwereade> rogpeppe, yeah,_so_long as you had the watchdog timer outside it I think it cold work_quite_nicely
<rogpeppe> fwereade:_well,_the_watchdog timer *is* outside it
<fwereade>_rogpeppe, but you'd want access_to that_for the bits that really do involve timeouts
<fwereade>_rogpeppe,_so, yeah, it's_fiddly
<rogpeppe> fwereade: can we land my change (to preserve_backward compatibility) so that we can_at least move_forward_without_needing to update juju-core,_until juju-core is at least ready_to use the new API, at_which point the names can be changed?
<rogpeppe>_fwereade: because we are not developing_juju-core and really don't want_our moving_forward to be predicated on_changes there
<rogpeppe> fwereade:_think of_it like this:_the API has been "wrong" for_>2 years now._another week or so surely isn't_too_bad.
<fwereade> dooferlad, do_you_have_the bandwidth_to follow up_on_that; and,_rogpeppe,_to absorb that change when it_does_come?
<rogpeppe> fwereade: we don't have a problem_with absorbing the change_'cos_we're not actually using_the fslock API
<rogpeppe> fwereade: (only_indirectly)
<rogpeppe> fwereade: going for lunch now
<fwereade>_rogpeppe, ok,_cool --_and dooferlad, does that work for you? I presume you had_a actually-use-in-juju-core change coming up anyway?
<dooferlad>_fwereade: yes, once my_changes land_I_will be happy_to_fix the_integration with Juju core
<fwereade> dooferlad, rogpeppe: awesome,_ty both
<dooferlad>_fwereade, rogpeppe: