Re: backup API in 1.20

On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 8:25 AM, John Meinel wrote: > So as discussed, I think we still want to support a HTTP GET based API for > actually downloading the content to the client. And the CLI can do steps > like: > RPC to a request to create a backup (either this is synchronous and > returns a UR

Re: backup API in 1.20

So as discussed, I think we still want to support a HTTP GET based API for actually downloading the content to the client. And the CLI can do steps like: RPC to a request to create a backup (either this is synchronous and returns a URL, or the next step is to wait on the next request for when it i

Re: help please: mongo/mgo panic

Could this be something where we are getting transactions faster than we can finalize them? John =:-> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Gustavo Niemeyer wrote: > We've got a database dump yesterday, which gives me something to > investigate. I'll spend some time on this tomorrow (today) and rep

Re: CI regressions will block merges

Thanks for updating the bot, Curtis. I think this is definitely an important thing to do. John =:-> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Nate Finch wrote: > I'll fix 1342725 . > Sorry that one hasn't gotten in earlier. > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 201

Re: help please: mongo/mgo panic

We've got a database dump yesterday, which gives me something to investigate. I'll spend some time on this tomorrow (today) and report back. On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 1:34 AM, Menno Smits wrote: > All, > > Various people have been seeing the machine agents panic with the following > message: > >

Re: Landing changes for juju subprojects

Thanks Martin. I'd really appreciate an email to the juju-dev list as each juju subproject is enabled. Can we get you to do that? Cheers, Tim On 29/07/14 23:39, Martin Packman wrote: > I'm switching our various subprojects in the juju namespace on github > over to having landings gated by jenki

help please: mongo/mgo panic

All, Various people have been seeing the machine agents panic with the following message: panic: rescanned document misses transaction in queue The error message comes from mgo but the actual cause is unknown. There's plenty of detail in the comments for the LP bug that's tracking this. If yo

Re: backup API in 1.20

> > > But I'm a bit suspicious... would someone please confirm that we don't > have *any* released clients that use the POST API? The above is predicated > on that assumption. > The juju command line client hasn't yet seen changes to call the backup POST API. The work was seemingly being done "ser

Re: CI regressions will block merges

I'll fix 1342725 . Sorry that one hasn't gotten in earlier. On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Horacio Duran wrote: > Since $$fixes-1342937$$ is already committed I changed the state by hand > in the bug report sorry I did not do that before, I

Re: CI regressions will block merges

Since $$fixes-1342937$$ is already committed I changed the state by hand in the bug report sorry I did not do that before, I forgot it was no longer automatic. On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Curtis Hovey-Canonical < cur...@canonical.com> wrote: > Magicians. > > I have updated the rules that t

CI regressions will block merges

Magicians. I have updated the rules that test merges to abort when there are ci regressions and the PR doesn't claim to fix one of them Three bugs currently block merges into master. CI is looking for one of these three token: $$fixes-1347715$$ $$fixes-1342725$$ $$fixes-1342937$$ Add

Re: backup API in 1.20

On 29 July 2014 18:12, William Reade wrote: > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 6:57 PM, roger peppe wrote: >> >> On 29 July 2014 16:50, Eric Snow wrote: >> > The API server side of backup made it into 1.20 (the client-side and >> > CLI did not). However, the API is exposed via HTTP POST rather than >> >

Re: backup API in 1.20

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:12 AM, William Reade wrote: > Given that we explicitly flagged the POST API as experimental, and we didn't > release a client that actually used it, I think we're safe fixing and > backporting (although, remember, the 1.18-based backup/restore needs to > continue to work

Re: backup API in 1.20

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 6:57 PM, roger peppe wrote: > On 29 July 2014 16:50, Eric Snow wrote: > > The API server side of backup made it into 1.20 (the client-side and > > CLI did not). However, the API is exposed via HTTP POST rather than > > through websockets RPC. > > An HTTP POST request see

Re: backup API in 1.20

On 29 July 2014 16:50, Eric Snow wrote: > The API server side of backup made it into 1.20 (the client-side and > CLI did not). However, the API is exposed via HTTP POST rather than > through websockets RPC. An HTTP POST request seems about right for a call that streams a significant amount of da

backup API in 1.20

The API server side of backup made it into 1.20 (the client-side and CLI did not). However, the API is exposed via HTTP POST rather than through websockets RPC. We are correcting this right now. The question is, are there any objections to removing backup from the state API in 1.20 (or, less des

Re: api/cli compatability between juju minor versions

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 2:12 AM, Kapil Thangavelu wrote: > There's an extant version incompatibility between 1.18 and 1.20 that was > highlighted during the 1.19 dev cycle which is unaddressed till the > unreleased 1.21 (http://pad.lv/1311227). We should treat compatibility > breakage as a blocke

Landing changes for juju subprojects

I'm switching our various subprojects in the juju namespace on github over to having landings gated by jenkins jobs that run their test suites. For most of us this should be pretty easy to deal with, the 'Merge pull request' button will go away on the webpage as projects get switched. When it does