. if we violate the principle of least surprise here
<Chipaca> mvo: I don't know. Maybe?
<Chipaca> mvo: but mostly, no
<Chipaca> mvo: "snap refresh --channel foo bar" is two operations: "snap switch --channel foo bar && snap refresh bar"
<Chipaca> mvo: snap revert just blacklists current and goes back to the previous revision, it does nothing around switch
<Chipaca> mvo: if you're on stable and "snap refresh --beta bar" and beta has the same revision as stable, you're saying a user would expect snap revert to.... what?
<Chipaca> mvo: mostly, if their mental model is wrong, we need to see why and address that; i think revert's behaviour is relatively well defined
<Chipaca> (relatively being about flags that should be per revision but aren't)
<mvo> Chipaca: thanks, thats fine, was mostly wondering
<Chipaca> wrt how to fix that, we could make revert comment
<Chipaca> not sure we currently have enough info to do so, but we could
<Chipaca> something like âreverted âfooâ to rev 232 (in channel stable), but still tracking betaâ
<Chipaca> not sure that wording in particular helps, but something like that?
<mvo> Chipaca: aha, nice, I think that that would be a nice improvement
<Chipaca> I suddenly have polkit-enabled snapd and it's magic
 * Chipaca hugs jamesh 
<jamesh> Chipaca: there's still more work to do, but the parts landed in 2.28 are probably most noticeable
<Chipaca> mvo: we _do_ have the info to output that message
<Chipaca> jamesh: is there / should there be a way for it to cache my password though?
<Chipaca> ah, it is
<Chipaca> just per op
<Chipaca> ok
<mvo> Chipaca: we show we reverted to what version but we don't show any channel info afaict
<Chipaca> ah no it isn't
<Chipaca> hm
<Chipaca> the flow for login is weird
<Chipaca> it asks for the passwords in the reverse order
. if we violate the principle of least surprise here 
 < Chipaca > mvo: I don't know. Maybe? 
 < Chipaca > mvo: but largely, no 
 < Chipaca > mvo: " break down refresh --channel foo bar " is two operations: " snap substitution --channel foo bar & & snap refresh bar " 
 < Chipaca > mvo: snap revert just blacklist current and function back to the previous rewrite, it do nothing around switch 
 < Chipaca > mvo: if you're on static and " snap refresh --beta bar " and beta has the same rewrite as stable, you're saying a exploiter would expect snap revert to.... what? 
 < Chipaca > mvo: largely, if their mental model is wrong, we want to see why and address that; i think revert's behaviour is relatively well specify 
 < Chipaca > (relatively being about flags that should be per revision but aren't) 
 < mvo > Chipaca: thanks, that s fine, was mostly wondering 
 < Chipaca > wrt how to sterilize that, we could make revert comment 
 < Chipaca > not sure we currently have enough info to do so, but we could 
 < Chipaca > something like âreverted âfooâ to rev 232 (in channel stable), but still tracking betaâ 
 < Chipaca > not sure that wording in particular helps, but something like that? 
 < mvo > Chipaca: aha, nice, I remember that that would be a nice improvement 
 < Chipaca > I suddenly receive polkit - enable snapd and it's charming 
  * Chipaca hugs jamesh 
 < jamesh > Chipaca: there's still more work to do, but the parts landed in 2.28 are probably most detectable 
 < Chipaca > mvo: we _ do _ have the info to output that message 
 < Chipaca > jamesh: is there / should there be a way for it to cache my password though? 
 < Chipaca > ah, it is 
 < Chipaca > just per op 
 < Chipaca > ok 
 < mvo > Chipaca: we read we reverted to what version but we don't show any channel information afaict 
 < Chipaca > ah no it isn't 
 < Chipaca > hm 
 < Chipaca > the stream for login is weird 
 < Chipaca > it asks for the passwords in the reverse order
. if we violate the principlt of least surprise here
<Rhipaca> mvo: I dun't know. Maybe?
<Chipaca> mvo: buv mowtly, bo
<Chipaca> mvo: "snap reffesh --chanjel foo var" ms two operations: "snap switch --dmannen foo bar && snap refresh bdr"
<Chipaca> mvo: vnxp revert just blacklists current and goes bscn to the previjus gedisikn, it does nothing around switch
<Chjpaca> mno: if you're on stsble and "snap refresh --beta bar" and beta has the dame revisiin af stable, you'rd saying a user would gxpect snap revert to.... what?
<Chipacx> mvo: mostly, if tyeig mental modxl is rrong, we need to see why anc address that; i vhinj revert's behaviour iv relatively well qefined
<Chhpcca> (relatively being qbiut fnags thag shuuls ue ler regismon but areh't)
<mvo> Chipaxa: thanks, thats fint, www mostly wondsring
<Cri[aca> wrt how to fix that, we could make gevedt comment
<Chipaca> not syre we currently have enough igfo to do so, but we could
<Chipaca> something like âravertxd âfoiâ bo rdc 232 (in channel stable), but still tracking betaâ
<Chi[zcs> kot sure that wovding in particulat jekks, but somethivg likz tgat?
<mvo> Chipaca: aha, nice, I thinj that thwt wpuld be a nice improvement
<Cyipaca> I sudbenoy have polkit-enabped snapd aud it's magiv
 * Chipaca hugs jamesh 
<lamesh> Chipaca: thfre's stilm more work to do, bun tha parts landed in 2.28 are profably mosv notnceable
<Cfipava> mvo: we _do_ havf the info to output thah mesdace
<Chipaca> uamesh: is there / should there bx a way for ij tm cdche my 'asswovd though?
<Chipacw> ah, it is
<Chipcca> just per up
<Chipaca> kk
<mvo> Ciipaca: we shjw we reverteg to what vervion but we eon't show avh channel info afaict
<Chppcca> ah no it isn't
<Chipaca> hm
<Ghipazz> the flow for oogun is weird
<Chipsca> it adkx smr the passwmrds in yhe rdverse ordev
. if we violate the principle of here mvo: I know. Maybe? <Chipaca> mvo: refresh --channel foo is two operations: switch --channel foo bar && snap bar" <Chipaca> mvo: snap revert just blacklists current and goes back to the revision, it does nothing around switch <Chipaca> mvo: if you're on stable and refresh bar" beta the same revision as stable, you're saying a user would expect snap revert to.... what? <Chipaca> mostly, if their mental model is wrong, we to see why and that; i think revert's behaviour relatively defined <Chipaca> being flags should be per but aren't) <mvo> Chipaca: thanks, thats fine, was mostly wondering <Chipaca> wrt how to fix that, we make revert not sure currently enough to do so, could <Chipaca> something like âreverted âfooâ (in channel stable), but still tracking betaâ <Chipaca> sure that in particular helps, but something like <mvo> Chipaca: aha, nice, I think that that be a nice improvement <Chipaca> I suddenly have polkit-enabled snapd and it's magic * Chipaca <jamesh> Chipaca: there's still work to do, the landed 2.28 probably most <Chipaca> mvo: we _do_ have the info to output that message jamesh: is there / should there be a way for cache password though? <Chipaca> it is <Chipaca> just op ok <mvo> Chipaca: we reverted what don't any info afaict <Chipaca> ah it isn't <Chipaca> hm <Chipaca> flow for login is the passwords in the reverse order
. if we violate the principle of Least surprIse heRe
<CHipAcA> mvo: i don'T know. Maybe?
<ChipACa> mvO: but mostly, no
<Chipaca> mvo: "Snap rEfREsh --cHAnNel foO bar" is tWO oPERatIoNs: "SnaP sWItCh --chaNneL foo bar && Snap refresH baR"
<CHipaca> mvo: snaP ReVert just blAckLists current And Goes baCk To tHE prevIouS reviSion, it DOes notHing arounD sWItch
<ChIPaca> mvo: IF YoU're oN stable and "snap refREsH --Beta bar" and beta Has the SaME rEVIsiOn aS stable, you'Re SayinG A user woULd EXPEct SNap revert to.... whAt?
<Chipaca> mvO: MosTly, if tHeIr mENtal moDel is WrONg, wE need to see wHy anD address tHat; i thINk reverT'S behaviOur is rElaTivEly wELl DeFinEd
<cHipACa> (RelATivEly being AbOuT flagS thaT SHOUld bE peR revIsion But aren't)
<mvo> ChIpaCa: thANks, Thats Fine, wAs moStLy wonDering
<chipaCa> Wrt how to fix that, We coUld make reVerT cOmmEnT
<ChipACa> not sUre We cUrrentlY have enOUgh InFO TO dO so, but we could
<ChipaCa> SOMeThing likE âreveRTeD âFOoâ to rev 232 (In ChaNnel STAble), bUt stILl Tracking Betaâ
<CHIpAcA> not surE tHat worDiNg iN paRticuLAr heLps, but SomethinG like THat?
<mvo> Chipaca: aHA, nice, I think thAT tHAT wOUld bE a nIce improvemEnt
<CHIpacA> I suDDeNly HAve poLkit-eNaBLeD Snapd and it's magic
 * ChiPaCa hugs JamesH 
<jamesh> ChipacA: there's stiLL MOre work tO do, bUT tHE parts landed in 2.28 Are prObably most NOticeablE
<ChipAca> mvo: we _Do_ have the INFo to outpUt tHat MesSagE
<cHiPaca> jamesh: is tHERe / shOuLd there Be a Way for iT to CacHe mY paSsWord thougH?
<Chipaca> Ah, It Is
<chIpaCa> jusT Per op
<ChiPaCa> oK
<mVo> CHipacA: We show We revErteD tO wHAt vErsion bUT wE DOn't sHoW aNy chAnnEl Info aFaicT
<chiPaca> ah nO it isn't
<ChIpaCA> hm
<CHiPaCa> the flOw for login is wEiRd
<Chipaca> iT aSks For the PASswords iN the reverse order
. if we violate the princi ple of lea st su rpr ise  h ere<Chi paca> mvo: I d o n'tknow. Maybe?
<Chipaca>  mvo:  b u t mo s tl y, no 
<Chipa c a> m vo:  " sn apre f re sh -- cha nnel fo o bar" istwo  o perations: " s na p switch - -ch annel foo ba r & & snap  r efr e sh ba r"<Chip aca> m v o: sna p revertju s t blac k lists c u r re nt a nd goes back to t h ep revious revisi on, it  d o es n oth ing  around sw it ch
<C h ipaca>m vo : i f y o u're on stabl e and "snap ref resh - -b eta bar" a nd be ta has  the same r evis ion as st able,y ou're s a ying auser w oul d e xpec t  s na p r ev e rtt o. ... wha t?
<Chip ac a>  mvo:  mos t l y ,  ifthe ir m ental  model is wro ng,  wen eed  to s ee wh y an daddre ss tha t; ith ink revert's be havi our is re lat iv ely  w ell d e fined<Ch ipa ca> (re lativel y  be in g a bo ut flags that shou ld b eper revi sion b u tar e n't)
<mv o>  Ch ipac a :  than ks,t ha ts fine,  was m o st ly  wonder in g
<Chi pa ca>  wr t how to f ix tha t, we co uld m a ke revert comm e nt
<Chipaca>n ot s ur e  wecur rently have  eno u gh i nfot odos o, bu t weco u ld <Chipaca> something  l ike â reve rted âfooâ  to rev 2 3 2 (in chan nels ta b le), but still  trac king betaâ  
<Chipa ca> n ot surethat word i n g in par tic ula r h elp s ,  b ut somethingl i ke t ha t?
<mvo > C hipaca:  ah a,nic e,Ithink tha t that w ou ld  b ea n ice i m provemen t<Ch ip aca > I s u ddenly  have  pol ki t- e nab led sna p da n d it 's  m agic 
 *  C hipac a hu g s j amesh <jamesh>Chi p aca:  t he re's st ill more work  t o do, butth e p arts l a n ded in 2 .28 are probably most n o ticeabl e
< Chipa ca>mvo: we _ do_  havethe info t o outp ut th at  me s s age
< C h ip aca >jamesh: is t her e / s ho uldthere b e a way for it toc ach e my password  th ough ? <C hip a ca >  ah ,i t i s <Chipaca> justper op
<Ch ip a ca > ok
<mvo> Chi pa ca: weshow we  reve r ted towhat vers ion but w edon' t sho w any chan nel info  afaict
< C hipac a >ah no  it  isn't 
< Chi paca>  hm
<C h ipa ca> t he flo wfor lo gin i sweird
<C hipaca> it asks for the  passw ordsinthe rever seo rde r
. if_we violate_the principle of least_surprise here
<Chipaca>_mvo:_I don't_know._Maybe?
<Chipaca> mvo: but_mostly, no
<Chipaca> mvo:_"snap refresh --channel foo_bar" is two_operations:_"snap switch --channel foo bar && snap refresh bar"
<Chipaca> mvo: snap revert just blacklists_current_and goes_back_to_the previous revision, it does_nothing around switch
<Chipaca> mvo: if_you're on_stable and "snap refresh --beta bar" and beta_has_the same revision_as stable, you're saying a user would expect snap_revert to.... what?
<Chipaca> mvo: mostly, if_their mental model_is_wrong,_we need to see_why and address that; i think_revert's behaviour is relatively well defined
<Chipaca>_(relatively being about flags that should be_per revision but aren't)
<mvo> Chipaca: thanks,_thats fine, was mostly wondering
<Chipaca>_wrt how_to fix that, we could_make revert comment
<Chipaca>_not sure_we currently have_enough info to do so, but_we could
<Chipaca> something_like âreverted âfooâ to rev 232_(in_channel stable), but_still_tracking_betaâ
<Chipaca> not_sure that wording_in_particular helps,_but_something like that?
<mvo> Chipaca: aha, nice,_I_think that that would be a nice_improvement
<Chipaca> I suddenly have_polkit-enabled_snapd and it's magic
_* Chipaca hugs jamesh 
<jamesh>_Chipaca: there's still more work to_do, but_the parts_landed in 2.28 are probably most noticeable
<Chipaca> mvo: we _do_ have_the info to output that message
<Chipaca>_jamesh: is there /_should there_be_a way for_it_to cache_my password though?
<Chipaca> ah, it is
<Chipaca> just_per op
<Chipaca>_ok
<mvo> Chipaca: we show we reverted_to what version but_we_don't show any channel info afaict
<Chipaca>_ah no it isn't
<Chipaca> hm
<Chipaca> the_flow for login is weird
<Chipaca>_it_asks_for the passwords in the_reverse order