Re: Go 1.6 is now in trusty-proposed

2016-03-28 Thread Mark Ramm-Christensen (Canonical.com) 
My point is not to advocate for a specific solution but rather to suggest
that *any* sensible incremental approach will produce real results.

--Mark Ramm



On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:51 PM, David Cheney 
wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Mark Ramm-Christensen
> (Canonical.com)  wrote:
> > Never a good time to stop feature work entirely and fix what amounts to a
> > race prone set of tests.
> >
> >
> > But I would advocate building in some practices to improve the situation
> > incrementally:
> >
> > fixing one major issue per team per week
>
> SGTM. How do we know which of the millions of private lists of bugs
> are the critical ones? Which of the hundred "critical", "papercut",
> "urgent" LP tags are the critical ones?
>
> > promoting all issues which fail CI more than x times per week to Critical
> > blocking all branches on fridays except for fixes for bugs on the top
> issues
> > list
>
> Which timezone is friday ?
>
> > or some other similar policy
> >
> > Over time over time any of the above policies will bring the total
> number of
> > test failures down significantly, and would still allow progress on
> feature
> > work.
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Nate Finch 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I'll just note that we've had flaky tests for as long as I've been
> working
> >> on Juju, and there's never a "good" time to fix them. :)
> >>
> >> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 11:48 AM Aaron Bentley
> >>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >>> Hash: SHA256
> >>>
> >>> On 2016-03-28 09:03 AM, Katherine Cox-Buday wrote:
> >>> > Generally +1 on this, but I'm also intrigued by Martin's
> >>> > statistic... do we currently weight test failures by how likely
> >>> > they are to fail (i.e. how likely they are flaky)? That seems like
> >>> > it would be a great metric to use to decide which to fix first.
> >>>
> >>> We don't do it on the likelihood of failure, but we do it on the
> >>> frequency of failure.
> >>>
> >>> http://reports.vapour.ws/releases/top-issues
> >>>
> >>> I report on these on the cross-team call, and once the 2.0 settles
> >>> down, I'll be reporting them on the release call again.
> >>>
> >>> Aaron
> >>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> >>> Version: GnuPG v2
> >>>
> >>> iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJW+VJcAAoJEK84cMOcf+9hWrwH/0JradfscIE0wnt+yCW9nNCR
> >>> 9hTHI2U19v1VuP6pWI4UiC7srfojPI8EXXEXrrAhF9rT8tpVK4EcJRJK9RvWvvz5
> >>> BEquHMS0+eROFOqDJFavEB8hU7BKHErzkSwSG8uKq7JuwHs9gNtQO9z9fIhVKjnr
> >>> aP4z2IliCqbYfXbupfSTD8TmqhI0AipQymTg3QB4C3sJdXzc5GjzIIckUo/X7aJj
> >>> zH1tEtlwOdP0c9F+8ZVs1j6AAkb+uDGc/1Qr4MT1kInqGkli2UNF4TOX/AihNPyH
> >>> iwYgq6O7uOkijFTrL9obRfbXxIFw1WCc9cYzxbRYnGfQff47Dyj7/BUStPPH0i0=
> >>> =8FQ6
> >>> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Juju-dev mailing list
> >>> Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
> >>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> >>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Juju-dev mailing list
> >> Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
> >> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Juju-dev mailing list
> > Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
> > Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
> >
>
-- 
Juju-dev mailing list
Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev

Re: Go 1.6 is now in trusty-proposed

2016-03-28 Thread David Cheney 
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Mark Ramm-Christensen
(Canonical.com)  wrote:
> Never a good time to stop feature work entirely and fix what amounts to a
> race prone set of tests.
>
>
> But I would advocate building in some practices to improve the situation
> incrementally:
>
> fixing one major issue per team per week

SGTM. How do we know which of the millions of private lists of bugs
are the critical ones? Which of the hundred "critical", "papercut",
"urgent" LP tags are the critical ones?

> promoting all issues which fail CI more than x times per week to Critical
> blocking all branches on fridays except for fixes for bugs on the top issues
> list

Which timezone is friday ?

> or some other similar policy
>
> Over time over time any of the above policies will bring the total number of
> test failures down significantly, and would still allow progress on feature
> work.
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Nate Finch 
> wrote:
>>
>> I'll just note that we've had flaky tests for as long as I've been working
>> on Juju, and there's never a "good" time to fix them. :)
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 11:48 AM Aaron Bentley
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>> Hash: SHA256
>>>
>>> On 2016-03-28 09:03 AM, Katherine Cox-Buday wrote:
>>> > Generally +1 on this, but I'm also intrigued by Martin's
>>> > statistic... do we currently weight test failures by how likely
>>> > they are to fail (i.e. how likely they are flaky)? That seems like
>>> > it would be a great metric to use to decide which to fix first.
>>>
>>> We don't do it on the likelihood of failure, but we do it on the
>>> frequency of failure.
>>>
>>> http://reports.vapour.ws/releases/top-issues
>>>
>>> I report on these on the cross-team call, and once the 2.0 settles
>>> down, I'll be reporting them on the release call again.
>>>
>>> Aaron
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
>>> Version: GnuPG v2
>>>
>>> iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJW+VJcAAoJEK84cMOcf+9hWrwH/0JradfscIE0wnt+yCW9nNCR
>>> 9hTHI2U19v1VuP6pWI4UiC7srfojPI8EXXEXrrAhF9rT8tpVK4EcJRJK9RvWvvz5
>>> BEquHMS0+eROFOqDJFavEB8hU7BKHErzkSwSG8uKq7JuwHs9gNtQO9z9fIhVKjnr
>>> aP4z2IliCqbYfXbupfSTD8TmqhI0AipQymTg3QB4C3sJdXzc5GjzIIckUo/X7aJj
>>> zH1tEtlwOdP0c9F+8ZVs1j6AAkb+uDGc/1Qr4MT1kInqGkli2UNF4TOX/AihNPyH
>>> iwYgq6O7uOkijFTrL9obRfbXxIFw1WCc9cYzxbRYnGfQff47Dyj7/BUStPPH0i0=
>>> =8FQ6
>>> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>>>
>>> --
>>> Juju-dev mailing list
>>> Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
>>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>>
>>
>> --
>> Juju-dev mailing list
>> Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>>
>
>
> --
> Juju-dev mailing list
> Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>

-- 
Juju-dev mailing list
Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev

Re: Go 1.6 is now in trusty-proposed

2016-03-28 Thread Mark Ramm-Christensen (Canonical.com) 
Never a good time to stop feature work entirely and fix what amounts to a
race prone set of tests.


But I would advocate building in some practices to improve the situation
incrementally:


   - fixing one major issue per team per week
   - promoting all issues which fail CI more than x times per week to
   Critical
   - blocking all branches on fridays except for fixes for bugs on the top
   issues list
   - or some other similar policy

Over time over time any of the above policies will bring the total number
of test failures down significantly, and would still allow progress on
feature work.

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Nate Finch 
wrote:

> I'll just note that we've had flaky tests for as long as I've been working
> on Juju, and there's never a "good" time to fix them. :)
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 11:48 AM Aaron Bentley <
> aaron.bent...@canonical.com> wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA256
>>
>> On 2016-03-28 09:03 AM, Katherine Cox-Buday wrote:
>> > Generally +1 on this, but I'm also intrigued by Martin's
>> > statistic... do we currently weight test failures by how likely
>> > they are to fail (i.e. how likely they are flaky)? That seems like
>> > it would be a great metric to use to decide which to fix first.
>>
>> We don't do it on the likelihood of failure, but we do it on the
>> frequency of failure.
>>
>> http://reports.vapour.ws/releases/top-issues
>>
>> I report on these on the cross-team call, and once the 2.0 settles
>> down, I'll be reporting them on the release call again.
>>
>> Aaron
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
>> Version: GnuPG v2
>>
>> iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJW+VJcAAoJEK84cMOcf+9hWrwH/0JradfscIE0wnt+yCW9nNCR
>> 9hTHI2U19v1VuP6pWI4UiC7srfojPI8EXXEXrrAhF9rT8tpVK4EcJRJK9RvWvvz5
>> BEquHMS0+eROFOqDJFavEB8hU7BKHErzkSwSG8uKq7JuwHs9gNtQO9z9fIhVKjnr
>> aP4z2IliCqbYfXbupfSTD8TmqhI0AipQymTg3QB4C3sJdXzc5GjzIIckUo/X7aJj
>> zH1tEtlwOdP0c9F+8ZVs1j6AAkb+uDGc/1Qr4MT1kInqGkli2UNF4TOX/AihNPyH
>> iwYgq6O7uOkijFTrL9obRfbXxIFw1WCc9cYzxbRYnGfQff47Dyj7/BUStPPH0i0=
>> =8FQ6
>> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>>
>> --
>> Juju-dev mailing list
>> Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>>
>
> --
> Juju-dev mailing list
> Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>
>
-- 
Juju-dev mailing list
Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev

Re: Go 1.6 is now in trusty-proposed

2016-03-28 Thread Nate Finch 
I'll just note that we've had flaky tests for as long as I've been working
on Juju, and there's never a "good" time to fix them. :)

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 11:48 AM Aaron Bentley 
wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 2016-03-28 09:03 AM, Katherine Cox-Buday wrote:
> > Generally +1 on this, but I'm also intrigued by Martin's
> > statistic... do we currently weight test failures by how likely
> > they are to fail (i.e. how likely they are flaky)? That seems like
> > it would be a great metric to use to decide which to fix first.
>
> We don't do it on the likelihood of failure, but we do it on the
> frequency of failure.
>
> http://reports.vapour.ws/releases/top-issues
>
> I report on these on the cross-team call, and once the 2.0 settles
> down, I'll be reporting them on the release call again.
>
> Aaron
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v2
>
> iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJW+VJcAAoJEK84cMOcf+9hWrwH/0JradfscIE0wnt+yCW9nNCR
> 9hTHI2U19v1VuP6pWI4UiC7srfojPI8EXXEXrrAhF9rT8tpVK4EcJRJK9RvWvvz5
> BEquHMS0+eROFOqDJFavEB8hU7BKHErzkSwSG8uKq7JuwHs9gNtQO9z9fIhVKjnr
> aP4z2IliCqbYfXbupfSTD8TmqhI0AipQymTg3QB4C3sJdXzc5GjzIIckUo/X7aJj
> zH1tEtlwOdP0c9F+8ZVs1j6AAkb+uDGc/1Qr4MT1kInqGkli2UNF4TOX/AihNPyH
> iwYgq6O7uOkijFTrL9obRfbXxIFw1WCc9cYzxbRYnGfQff47Dyj7/BUStPPH0i0=
> =8FQ6
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
> --
> Juju-dev mailing list
> Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>
-- 
Juju-dev mailing list
Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev

Re: Go 1.6 is now in trusty-proposed

2016-03-28 Thread Aaron Bentley 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 2016-03-28 09:03 AM, Katherine Cox-Buday wrote:
> Generally +1 on this, but I'm also intrigued by Martin's
> statistic... do we currently weight test failures by how likely
> they are to fail (i.e. how likely they are flaky)? That seems like
> it would be a great metric to use to decide which to fix first.

We don't do it on the likelihood of failure, but we do it on the
frequency of failure.

http://reports.vapour.ws/releases/top-issues

I report on these on the cross-team call, and once the 2.0 settles
down, I'll be reporting them on the release call again.

Aaron
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJW+VJcAAoJEK84cMOcf+9hWrwH/0JradfscIE0wnt+yCW9nNCR
9hTHI2U19v1VuP6pWI4UiC7srfojPI8EXXEXrrAhF9rT8tpVK4EcJRJK9RvWvvz5
BEquHMS0+eROFOqDJFavEB8hU7BKHErzkSwSG8uKq7JuwHs9gNtQO9z9fIhVKjnr
aP4z2IliCqbYfXbupfSTD8TmqhI0AipQymTg3QB4C3sJdXzc5GjzIIckUo/X7aJj
zH1tEtlwOdP0c9F+8ZVs1j6AAkb+uDGc/1Qr4MT1kInqGkli2UNF4TOX/AihNPyH
iwYgq6O7uOkijFTrL9obRfbXxIFw1WCc9cYzxbRYnGfQff47Dyj7/BUStPPH0i0=
=8FQ6
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-- 
Juju-dev mailing list
Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev

Re: Go 1.6 is now in trusty-proposed

2016-03-28 Thread Cheryl Jennings 
These intermittently failing unit tests are often due to unreliable unit
tests, rather than problems in the code.  As nice as it would be to not
have to retry tests (particularly unit tests), I'd much rather we spend our
precious resources on fixing bugs that are causing pain for our users.

There are currently 168 Triaged bugs targeted against 2.0-beta4 [0], many
of which have been reported by actual users and have been deferred release
after release.  For comparison, there are 18 go 1.5 /1.6 bugs found by CI.

Thanks,
-Cheryl

[0] https://launchpad.net/juju-core/+milestone/2.0-beta4

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Nate Finch 
wrote:

> +1, don't retry... devs need to feel the pain in order to get proper
> motivation to fix this stuff...
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:03 AM Katherine Cox-Buday <
> katherine.cox-bu...@canonical.com> wrote:
>
>> Just wanted to say thank you 100x to all involved!
>>
>> On 03/24/2016 01:03 AM, Michael Hudson-Doyle wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > As of a few minutes ago, there is now a golang-1.6 package in
>> > trusty-proposed:
>> > https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/trusty/+source/golang-1.6 (thanks for the
>> > review and copy, Steve).
>> >
>> > One difference between this and the package I prepared earlier is that
>> > it does not install /usr/bin/go but rather /usr/lib/go-1.6/bin/go so
>> > Makefiles and such will need to be adjusted to invoke that directly or
>> > put /usr/lib/go-1.6/bin on $PATH or whatever. (This also means it can
>> > be installed alongside the golang packages that are already in
>> > trusty).
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > mwh
>> > (Hoping that we can now really properly ignore gccgo-4.9 ppc64el bugs!)
>> >
>> > On 17 February 2016 at 07:58, Michael Hudson-Doyle
>> >  wrote:
>> >> I have approval for the idea but also decided to wait for 1.6 and
>> upload
>> >> that instead. I'm also on leave currently so hopefully this can all
>> happen
>> >> in early March.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> mwh
>> >>
>> >> On 17/02/2016 1:17 am, "John Meinel"  wrote:
>> >>> To start with, thanks for working on this. However, doesn't this also
>> >>> require changing the CI builds to use your ppa?
>> >>>
>> >>> What is the current state of this? I was just looking around and
>> noticed
>> >>> golang1.5-go isn't in anything specific for Trusty that I can see. I
>> realize
>> >>> if its going into an SRU it requires a fair amount of negotiation
>> with other
>> >>> teams, so I'm not  surprised to see it take a while. I just wanted to
>> check
>> >>> how it was going.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>>
>> >>> John
>> >>> =:->
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Michael Hudson-Doyle
>> >>>  wrote:
>>  Hi all,
>> 
>>  As part of the plan for getting Go 1.5 into trusty (see here
>>  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MichaelHudsonDoyle/Go15InTrusty) I've built
>>  packages (called golang1.5-go rather than golang-go) for trusty in my
>>  ppa:
>> 
>> 
>> https://launchpad.net/~mwhudson/+archive/ubuntu/go15-trusty/+packages
>> 
>>  (assuming 3:1.5.3-0ubuntu4 actually builds... I seem to be having a
>>  "make stupid packaging mistakes" day)
>> 
>>  I'll write up a SRU bug to start the process of getting this into
>>  trusty tomorrow but before it does end up in trusty it would seem
>> like
>>  a good idea to run the CI tests using juju-core packages built with
>>  this version of the go compiler. Is that something that's feasible to
>>  arrange
>> 
>>  The only packaging requirement should be to change the build-depends
>>  to be on golang1.5-go rather than golang-go or gccgo.
>> 
>>  Cheers,
>>  mwh
>> 
>>  --
>>  Juju-dev mailing list
>>  Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
>>  Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>>  https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>> >>>
>>
>> --
>> -
>> Katherine
>>
>>
>> --
>> Juju-dev mailing list
>> Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>>
>
> --
> Juju-dev mailing list
> Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>
>
-- 
Juju-dev mailing list
Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev

Re: Go 1.6 is now in trusty-proposed

2016-03-28 Thread Katherine Cox-Buday 
Totally agreed: 2.0 is obviously the priority. I didn't think anyone was
talking about a short-term pivot.

On 03/28/2016 10:34 AM, Cheryl Jennings wrote:
> Addressing flaky tests is definitely a long term goal we should have.
>
> Given that we are aiming for beta4 next week, I'd rather our energies
> in the short term are directed at fixing stakeholder bugs than fixing
> intermittent failures that prevent us from releasing because we are no
> longer retrying tests.
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Katherine Cox-Buday
>  > wrote:
>
> While agreeing with the spirit of your email, Cheryl, I'd like to
> opine that in the long-term fixing flaky tests will improve the
> code and help to fix (and prevent!) bugs.
>
> Put another way, flaky tests are indirectly causing pain for our
> users.
>
>
> On 03/28/2016 10:24 AM, Cheryl Jennings wrote:
>> These intermittently failing unit tests are often due to
>> unreliable unit tests, rather than problems in the code.  As nice
>> as it would be to not have to retry tests (particularly unit
>> tests), I'd much rather we spend our precious resources on fixing
>> bugs that are causing pain for our users.  
>>
>> There are currently 168 Triaged bugs targeted against 2.0-beta4
>> [0], many of which have been reported by actual users and have
>> been deferred release after release.  For comparison, there are
>> 18 go 1.5 /1.6 bugs found by CI.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Cheryl
>>
>> [0] https://launchpad.net/juju-core/+milestone/2.0-beta4
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Nate Finch
>> > wrote:
>>
>> +1, don't retry... devs need to feel the pain in order to get
>> proper motivation to fix this stuff...
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:03 AM Katherine Cox-Buday
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> Just wanted to say thank you 100x to all involved!
>>
>> On 03/24/2016 01:03 AM, Michael Hudson-Doyle wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > As of a few minutes ago, there is now a golang-1.6
>> package in
>> > trusty-proposed:
>> > https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/trusty/+source/golang-1.6
>> (thanks for the
>> > review and copy, Steve).
>> >
>> > One difference between this and the package I prepared
>> earlier is that
>> > it does not install /usr/bin/go but rather
>> /usr/lib/go-1.6/bin/go so
>> > Makefiles and such will need to be adjusted to invoke
>> that directly or
>> > put /usr/lib/go-1.6/bin on $PATH or whatever. (This
>> also means it can
>> > be installed alongside the golang packages that are
>> already in
>> > trusty).
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > mwh
>> > (Hoping that we can now really properly ignore
>> gccgo-4.9 ppc64el bugs!)
>> >
>> > On 17 February 2016 at 07:58, Michael Hudson-Doyle
>> > > > wrote:
>> >> I have approval for the idea but also decided to wait
>> for 1.6 and upload
>> >> that instead. I'm also on leave currently so hopefully
>> this can all happen
>> >> in early March.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> mwh
>> >>
>> >> On 17/02/2016 1:17 am, "John Meinel"
>> >
>> wrote:
>> >>> To start with, thanks for working on this. However,
>> doesn't this also
>> >>> require changing the CI builds to use your ppa?
>> >>>
>> >>> What is the current state of this? I was just looking
>> around and noticed
>> >>> golang1.5-go isn't in anything specific for Trusty
>> that I can see. I realize
>> >>> if its going into an SRU it requires a fair amount of
>> negotiation with other
>> >>> teams, so I'm not  surprised to see it take a while.
>> I just wanted to check
>> >>> how it was going.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>>
>> >>> John
>> >>> =:->
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Michael Hudson-Doyle
>> >>> > > wrote:
>>  Hi all,
>> 
>>  As part of the plan for getting Go 1.5 into

Re: Go 1.6 is now in trusty-proposed

2016-03-28 Thread Cheryl Jennings 
Addressing flaky tests is definitely a long term goal we should have.

Given that we are aiming for beta4 next week, I'd rather our energies in
the short term are directed at fixing stakeholder bugs than fixing
intermittent failures that prevent us from releasing because we are no
longer retrying tests.

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Katherine Cox-Buday <
katherine.cox-bu...@canonical.com> wrote:

> While agreeing with the spirit of your email, Cheryl, I'd like to opine
> that in the long-term fixing flaky tests will improve the code and help to
> fix (and prevent!) bugs.
>
> Put another way, flaky tests are indirectly causing pain for our users.
>
>
> On 03/28/2016 10:24 AM, Cheryl Jennings wrote:
>
> These intermittently failing unit tests are often due to unreliable unit
> tests, rather than problems in the code.  As nice as it would be to not
> have to retry tests (particularly unit tests), I'd much rather we spend our
> precious resources on fixing bugs that are causing pain for our users.
>
> There are currently 168 Triaged bugs targeted against 2.0-beta4 [0], many
> of which have been reported by actual users and have been deferred release
> after release.  For comparison, there are 18 go 1.5 /1.6 bugs found by CI.
>
> Thanks,
> -Cheryl
>
> [0] https://launchpad.net/juju-core/+milestone/2.0-beta4
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Nate Finch 
> wrote:
>
>> +1, don't retry... devs need to feel the pain in order to get proper
>> motivation to fix this stuff...
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:03 AM Katherine Cox-Buday <
>> katherine.cox-bu...@canonical.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Just wanted to say thank you 100x to all involved!
>>>
>>> On 03/24/2016 01:03 AM, Michael Hudson-Doyle wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > As of a few minutes ago, there is now a golang-1.6 package in
>>> > trusty-proposed:
>>> > https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/trusty/+source/golang-1.6 (thanks for the
>>> > review and copy, Steve).
>>> >
>>> > One difference between this and the package I prepared earlier is that
>>> > it does not install /usr/bin/go but rather /usr/lib/go-1.6/bin/go so
>>> > Makefiles and such will need to be adjusted to invoke that directly or
>>> > put /usr/lib/go-1.6/bin on $PATH or whatever. (This also means it can
>>> > be installed alongside the golang packages that are already in
>>> > trusty).
>>> >
>>> > Cheers,
>>> > mwh
>>> > (Hoping that we can now really properly ignore gccgo-4.9 ppc64el bugs!)
>>> >
>>> > On 17 February 2016 at 07:58, Michael Hudson-Doyle
>>> >  wrote:
>>> >> I have approval for the idea but also decided to wait for 1.6 and
>>> upload
>>> >> that instead. I'm also on leave currently so hopefully this can all
>>> happen
>>> >> in early March.
>>> >>
>>> >> Cheers,
>>> >> mwh
>>> >>
>>> >> On 17/02/2016 1:17 am, "John Meinel" < 
>>> j...@arbash-meinel.com> wrote:
>>> >>> To start with, thanks for working on this. However, doesn't this also
>>> >>> require changing the CI builds to use your ppa?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> What is the current state of this? I was just looking around and
>>> noticed
>>> >>> golang1.5-go isn't in anything specific for Trusty that I can see. I
>>> realize
>>> >>> if its going into an SRU it requires a fair amount of negotiation
>>> with other
>>> >>> teams, so I'm not  surprised to see it take a while. I just wanted
>>> to check
>>> >>> how it was going.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thanks,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> John
>>> >>> =:->
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Michael Hudson-Doyle
>>> >>>  wrote:
>>>  Hi all,
>>> 
>>>  As part of the plan for getting Go 1.5 into trusty (see here
>>>  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MichaelHudsonDoyle/Go15InTrusty) I've built
>>>  packages (called golang1.5-go rather than golang-go) for trusty in
>>> my
>>>  ppa:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> https://launchpad.net/~mwhudson/+archive/ubuntu/go15-trusty/+packages
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  (assuming 3:1.5.3-0ubuntu4 actually builds... I seem to be having a
>>>  "make stupid packaging mistakes" day)
>>> 
>>>  I'll write up a SRU bug to start the process of getting this into
>>>  trusty tomorrow but before it does end up in trusty it would seem
>>> like
>>>  a good idea to run the CI tests using juju-core packages built with
>>>  this version of the go compiler. Is that something that's feasible
>>> to
>>>  arrange
>>> 
>>>  The only packaging requirement should be to change the build-depends
>>>  to be on golang1.5-go rather than golang-go or gccgo.
>>> 
>>>  Cheers,
>>>  mwh
>>> 
>>>  --
>>>  Juju-dev mailing list
>>>  Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
>>>  Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>>>  https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>>> >>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> -
>>> Katherine
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Juju-dev mailing list
>>>

Re: Go 1.6 is now in trusty-proposed

2016-03-28 Thread Katherine Cox-Buday 
While agreeing with the spirit of your email, Cheryl, I'd like to opine
that in the long-term fixing flaky tests will improve the code and help
to fix (and prevent!) bugs.

Put another way, flaky tests are indirectly causing pain for our users.

On 03/28/2016 10:24 AM, Cheryl Jennings wrote:
> These intermittently failing unit tests are often due to unreliable
> unit tests, rather than problems in the code.  As nice as it would be
> to not have to retry tests (particularly unit tests), I'd much rather
> we spend our precious resources on fixing bugs that are causing pain
> for our users.  
>
> There are currently 168 Triaged bugs targeted against 2.0-beta4 [0],
> many of which have been reported by actual users and have been
> deferred release after release.  For comparison, there are 18 go 1.5
> /1.6 bugs found by CI.
>
> Thanks,
> -Cheryl
>
> [0] https://launchpad.net/juju-core/+milestone/2.0-beta4
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Nate Finch  > wrote:
>
> +1, don't retry... devs need to feel the pain in order to get
> proper motivation to fix this stuff...
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:03 AM Katherine Cox-Buday
>  > wrote:
>
> Just wanted to say thank you 100x to all involved!
>
> On 03/24/2016 01:03 AM, Michael Hudson-Doyle wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > As of a few minutes ago, there is now a golang-1.6 package in
> > trusty-proposed:
> > https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/trusty/+source/golang-1.6
> (thanks for the
> > review and copy, Steve).
> >
> > One difference between this and the package I prepared
> earlier is that
> > it does not install /usr/bin/go but rather
> /usr/lib/go-1.6/bin/go so
> > Makefiles and such will need to be adjusted to invoke that
> directly or
> > put /usr/lib/go-1.6/bin on $PATH or whatever. (This also
> means it can
> > be installed alongside the golang packages that are already in
> > trusty).
> >
> > Cheers,
> > mwh
> > (Hoping that we can now really properly ignore gccgo-4.9
> ppc64el bugs!)
> >
> > On 17 February 2016 at 07:58, Michael Hudson-Doyle
> >  > wrote:
> >> I have approval for the idea but also decided to wait for
> 1.6 and upload
> >> that instead. I'm also on leave currently so hopefully this
> can all happen
> >> in early March.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> mwh
> >>
> >> On 17/02/2016 1:17 am, "John Meinel"
> > wrote:
> >>> To start with, thanks for working on this. However,
> doesn't this also
> >>> require changing the CI builds to use your ppa?
> >>>
> >>> What is the current state of this? I was just looking
> around and noticed
> >>> golang1.5-go isn't in anything specific for Trusty that I
> can see. I realize
> >>> if its going into an SRU it requires a fair amount of
> negotiation with other
> >>> teams, so I'm not  surprised to see it take a while. I
> just wanted to check
> >>> how it was going.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> John
> >>> =:->
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Michael Hudson-Doyle
> >>>  > wrote:
>  Hi all,
> 
>  As part of the plan for getting Go 1.5 into trusty (see here
>  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MichaelHudsonDoyle/Go15InTrusty)
> I've built
>  packages (called golang1.5-go rather than golang-go) for
> trusty in my
>  ppa:
> 
> 
> https://launchpad.net/~mwhudson/+archive/ubuntu/go15-trusty/+packages
> 
> 
> 
>  (assuming 3:1.5.3-0ubuntu4 actually builds... I seem to
> be having a
>  "make stupid packaging mistakes" day)
> 
>  I'll write up a SRU bug to start the process of getting
> this into
>  trusty tomorrow but before it does end up in trusty it
> would seem like
>  a good idea to run the CI tests using juju-core packages
> built with
>  this version of the go compiler. Is that something that's
> feasible to
>  arrange
> 
>  The only packaging requirement should be to change the
> build-depends
>  to be on

Re: Go 1.6 is now in trusty-proposed

2016-03-28 Thread Nate Finch 
+1, don't retry... devs need to feel the pain in order to get proper
motivation to fix this stuff...

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:03 AM Katherine Cox-Buday <
katherine.cox-bu...@canonical.com> wrote:

> Just wanted to say thank you 100x to all involved!
>
> On 03/24/2016 01:03 AM, Michael Hudson-Doyle wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > As of a few minutes ago, there is now a golang-1.6 package in
> > trusty-proposed:
> > https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/trusty/+source/golang-1.6 (thanks for the
> > review and copy, Steve).
> >
> > One difference between this and the package I prepared earlier is that
> > it does not install /usr/bin/go but rather /usr/lib/go-1.6/bin/go so
> > Makefiles and such will need to be adjusted to invoke that directly or
> > put /usr/lib/go-1.6/bin on $PATH or whatever. (This also means it can
> > be installed alongside the golang packages that are already in
> > trusty).
> >
> > Cheers,
> > mwh
> > (Hoping that we can now really properly ignore gccgo-4.9 ppc64el bugs!)
> >
> > On 17 February 2016 at 07:58, Michael Hudson-Doyle
> >  wrote:
> >> I have approval for the idea but also decided to wait for 1.6 and upload
> >> that instead. I'm also on leave currently so hopefully this can all
> happen
> >> in early March.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> mwh
> >>
> >> On 17/02/2016 1:17 am, "John Meinel"  wrote:
> >>> To start with, thanks for working on this. However, doesn't this also
> >>> require changing the CI builds to use your ppa?
> >>>
> >>> What is the current state of this? I was just looking around and
> noticed
> >>> golang1.5-go isn't in anything specific for Trusty that I can see. I
> realize
> >>> if its going into an SRU it requires a fair amount of negotiation with
> other
> >>> teams, so I'm not  surprised to see it take a while. I just wanted to
> check
> >>> how it was going.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> John
> >>> =:->
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Michael Hudson-Doyle
> >>>  wrote:
>  Hi all,
> 
>  As part of the plan for getting Go 1.5 into trusty (see here
>  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MichaelHudsonDoyle/Go15InTrusty) I've built
>  packages (called golang1.5-go rather than golang-go) for trusty in my
>  ppa:
> 
>  https://launchpad.net/~mwhudson/+archive/ubuntu/go15-trusty/+packages
> 
>  (assuming 3:1.5.3-0ubuntu4 actually builds... I seem to be having a
>  "make stupid packaging mistakes" day)
> 
>  I'll write up a SRU bug to start the process of getting this into
>  trusty tomorrow but before it does end up in trusty it would seem like
>  a good idea to run the CI tests using juju-core packages built with
>  this version of the go compiler. Is that something that's feasible to
>  arrange
> 
>  The only packaging requirement should be to change the build-depends
>  to be on golang1.5-go rather than golang-go or gccgo.
> 
>  Cheers,
>  mwh
> 
>  --
>  Juju-dev mailing list
>  Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
>  Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>  https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
> >>>
>
> --
> -
> Katherine
>
>
> --
> Juju-dev mailing list
> Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>
-- 
Juju-dev mailing list
Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev

Re: Go 1.6 is now in trusty-proposed

2016-03-28 Thread Katherine Cox-Buday 
Just wanted to say thank you 100x to all involved!

On 03/24/2016 01:03 AM, Michael Hudson-Doyle wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As of a few minutes ago, there is now a golang-1.6 package in
> trusty-proposed:
> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/trusty/+source/golang-1.6 (thanks for the
> review and copy, Steve).
>
> One difference between this and the package I prepared earlier is that
> it does not install /usr/bin/go but rather /usr/lib/go-1.6/bin/go so
> Makefiles and such will need to be adjusted to invoke that directly or
> put /usr/lib/go-1.6/bin on $PATH or whatever. (This also means it can
> be installed alongside the golang packages that are already in
> trusty).
>
> Cheers,
> mwh
> (Hoping that we can now really properly ignore gccgo-4.9 ppc64el bugs!)
>
> On 17 February 2016 at 07:58, Michael Hudson-Doyle
>  wrote:
>> I have approval for the idea but also decided to wait for 1.6 and upload
>> that instead. I'm also on leave currently so hopefully this can all happen
>> in early March.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> mwh
>>
>> On 17/02/2016 1:17 am, "John Meinel"  wrote:
>>> To start with, thanks for working on this. However, doesn't this also
>>> require changing the CI builds to use your ppa?
>>>
>>> What is the current state of this? I was just looking around and noticed
>>> golang1.5-go isn't in anything specific for Trusty that I can see. I realize
>>> if its going into an SRU it requires a fair amount of negotiation with other
>>> teams, so I'm not  surprised to see it take a while. I just wanted to check
>>> how it was going.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> John
>>> =:->
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Michael Hudson-Doyle
>>>  wrote:
 Hi all,

 As part of the plan for getting Go 1.5 into trusty (see here
 https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MichaelHudsonDoyle/Go15InTrusty) I've built
 packages (called golang1.5-go rather than golang-go) for trusty in my
 ppa:

 https://launchpad.net/~mwhudson/+archive/ubuntu/go15-trusty/+packages

 (assuming 3:1.5.3-0ubuntu4 actually builds... I seem to be having a
 "make stupid packaging mistakes" day)

 I'll write up a SRU bug to start the process of getting this into
 trusty tomorrow but before it does end up in trusty it would seem like
 a good idea to run the CI tests using juju-core packages built with
 this version of the go compiler. Is that something that's feasible to
 arrange

 The only packaging requirement should be to change the build-depends
 to be on golang1.5-go rather than golang-go or gccgo.

 Cheers,
 mwh

 --
 Juju-dev mailing list
 Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
 Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
 https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>>>

-- 
-
Katherine


-- 
Juju-dev mailing list
Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev

Re: Go 1.6 is now in trusty-proposed

2016-03-28 Thread Katherine Cox-Buday 
Generally +1 on this, but I'm also intrigued by Martin's statistic... do
we currently weight test failures by how likely they are to fail (i.e.
how likely they are flaky)? That seems like it would be a great metric
to use to decide which to fix first.

On 03/28/2016 01:29 AM, David Cheney wrote:
> I know if we didn't retry constantly, the Juju tests'd never pass. But
> by retrying, there is no impetus to fix them.
>
> How about we stop retrying flaky tests? The blocked build get's the grease.
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Martin Packman
>  wrote:
>> On 27/03/2016, David Cheney  wrote:
>>> Hi Martin,
>>>
>>> I was told that the Go 1.6 tests were voting, so these bugs should be
>>> blocking bugs. Is this not the case ?
>> The tests are voting, and giving blesses, so no blocking bugs, but a
>> lot of the remaining issues are low-occurrence failures. Basically the
>> unit tests pass generally given the three attempts, but overall fail a
>> lot from a number of issues that all happen only occasionally.
>>
>> For instance, bug 1553292:
>>
>> 
>>
>> This is maybe ~5% chance of failing, but given the number of jobs now
>> using go 1.5+ that's still six failures in the last week.
>>
>> We have enough issues like this that CI spends a lot more time
>> retesting on go 1.6 than we do on go 1.2 with the same unit tests.
>>
>> Martin

-- 
-
Katherine


-- 
Juju-dev mailing list
Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev

Re: Go 1.6 is now in trusty-proposed

2016-03-28 Thread David Cheney 
I know if we didn't retry constantly, the Juju tests'd never pass. But
by retrying, there is no impetus to fix them.

How about we stop retrying flaky tests? The blocked build get's the grease.

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Martin Packman
 wrote:
> On 27/03/2016, David Cheney  wrote:
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> I was told that the Go 1.6 tests were voting, so these bugs should be
>> blocking bugs. Is this not the case ?
>
> The tests are voting, and giving blesses, so no blocking bugs, but a
> lot of the remaining issues are low-occurrence failures. Basically the
> unit tests pass generally given the three attempts, but overall fail a
> lot from a number of issues that all happen only occasionally.
>
> For instance, bug 1553292:
>
> 
>
> This is maybe ~5% chance of failing, but given the number of jobs now
> using go 1.5+ that's still six failures in the last week.
>
> We have enough issues like this that CI spends a lot more time
> retesting on go 1.6 than we do on go 1.2 with the same unit tests.
>
> Martin

-- 
Juju-dev mailing list
Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev

Re: Go 1.6 is now in trusty-proposed

2016-03-28 Thread Martin Packman 
On 27/03/2016, David Cheney  wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> I was told that the Go 1.6 tests were voting, so these bugs should be
> blocking bugs. Is this not the case ?

The tests are voting, and giving blesses, so no blocking bugs, but a
lot of the remaining issues are low-occurrence failures. Basically the
unit tests pass generally given the three attempts, but overall fail a
lot from a number of issues that all happen only occasionally.

For instance, bug 1553292:



This is maybe ~5% chance of failing, but given the number of jobs now
using go 1.5+ that's still six failures in the last week.

We have enough issues like this that CI spends a lot more time
retesting on go 1.6 than we do on go 1.2 with the same unit tests.

Martin

-- 
Juju-dev mailing list
Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev

Re: Go 1.6 is now in trusty-proposed

2016-03-27 Thread David Cheney 
Hi Martin,

I was told that the Go 1.6 tests were voting, so these bugs should be
blocking bugs. Is this not the case ?

Thanks

Dave

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Martin Packman
 wrote:
> On 24/03/2016, Ian Booth  wrote:
>>
>> Not yet. The builders and test infrastructure all need to be updated, and
>> the package needs a week to transition out of proposed.
>
> I'd also encourage people to look again at the go 1.5/1.6 unit test
> intermittent failures, as we're still often doing multiple runs in
> order to get a pass.
>
> 
>
> Martin
>
> --
> Juju-dev mailing list
> Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev

-- 
Juju-dev mailing list
Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev

Re: Go 1.6 is now in trusty-proposed

2016-03-24 Thread Martin Packman 
On 24/03/2016, Ian Booth  wrote:
>
> Not yet. The builders and test infrastructure all need to be updated, and
> the package needs a week to transition out of proposed.

I'd also encourage people to look again at the go 1.5/1.6 unit test
intermittent failures, as we're still often doing multiple runs in
order to get a pass.



Martin

-- 
Juju-dev mailing list
Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev

Re: Go 1.6 is now in trusty-proposed

2016-03-24 Thread Ian Booth 

On 24/03/16 22:01, Nate Finch wrote:
> Does this mean we can assume 1.6 for everything from now on, or is there
> some other step we're waiting on?  I have some code that only needs to
> exist while we support 1.2, and I'd be happy to just delete it.
>

Not yet. The builders and test infrastructure all need to be updated, and the
package needs a week to transition out of proposed.

We're also waiting on this to commit an Azure provider fix.


-- 
Juju-dev mailing list
Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev

Re: Go 1.6 is now in trusty-proposed

2016-03-24 Thread Nate Finch 
Does this mean we can assume 1.6 for everything from now on, or is there
some other step we're waiting on?  I have some code that only needs to
exist while we support 1.2, and I'd be happy to just delete it.

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016, 4:07 AM Tim Penhey  wrote:

> Awesome news Michael.
>
> Thank you for all your work on this.
>
> Tim
>
> On 24/03/16 19:03, Michael Hudson-Doyle wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > As of a few minutes ago, there is now a golang-1.6 package in
> > trusty-proposed:
> > https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/trusty/+source/golang-1.6 (thanks for the
> > review and copy, Steve).
> >
> > One difference between this and the package I prepared earlier is that
> > it does not install /usr/bin/go but rather /usr/lib/go-1.6/bin/go so
> > Makefiles and such will need to be adjusted to invoke that directly or
> > put /usr/lib/go-1.6/bin on $PATH or whatever. (This also means it can
> > be installed alongside the golang packages that are already in
> > trusty).
> >
> > Cheers,
> > mwh
> > (Hoping that we can now really properly ignore gccgo-4.9 ppc64el bugs!)
> >
> > On 17 February 2016 at 07:58, Michael Hudson-Doyle
> >  wrote:
> >> I have approval for the idea but also decided to wait for 1.6 and upload
> >> that instead. I'm also on leave currently so hopefully this can all
> happen
> >> in early March.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> mwh
> >>
> >> On 17/02/2016 1:17 am, "John Meinel"  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> To start with, thanks for working on this. However, doesn't this also
> >>> require changing the CI builds to use your ppa?
> >>>
> >>> What is the current state of this? I was just looking around and
> noticed
> >>> golang1.5-go isn't in anything specific for Trusty that I can see. I
> realize
> >>> if its going into an SRU it requires a fair amount of negotiation with
> other
> >>> teams, so I'm not  surprised to see it take a while. I just wanted to
> check
> >>> how it was going.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> John
> >>> =:->
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Michael Hudson-Doyle
> >>>  wrote:
> 
>  Hi all,
> 
>  As part of the plan for getting Go 1.5 into trusty (see here
>  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MichaelHudsonDoyle/Go15InTrusty) I've built
>  packages (called golang1.5-go rather than golang-go) for trusty in my
>  ppa:
> 
>  https://launchpad.net/~mwhudson/+archive/ubuntu/go15-trusty/+packages
> 
>  (assuming 3:1.5.3-0ubuntu4 actually builds... I seem to be having a
>  "make stupid packaging mistakes" day)
> 
>  I'll write up a SRU bug to start the process of getting this into
>  trusty tomorrow but before it does end up in trusty it would seem like
>  a good idea to run the CI tests using juju-core packages built with
>  this version of the go compiler. Is that something that's feasible to
>  arrange
> 
>  The only packaging requirement should be to change the build-depends
>  to be on golang1.5-go rather than golang-go or gccgo.
> 
>  Cheers,
>  mwh
> 
>  --
>  Juju-dev mailing list
>  Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
>  Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>  https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> Juju-dev mailing list
> Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>
-- 
Juju-dev mailing list
Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev

Re: Go 1.6 is now in trusty-proposed

2016-03-24 Thread Tim Penhey 
Awesome news Michael.

Thank you for all your work on this.

Tim

On 24/03/16 19:03, Michael Hudson-Doyle wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> As of a few minutes ago, there is now a golang-1.6 package in
> trusty-proposed:
> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/trusty/+source/golang-1.6 (thanks for the
> review and copy, Steve).
> 
> One difference between this and the package I prepared earlier is that
> it does not install /usr/bin/go but rather /usr/lib/go-1.6/bin/go so
> Makefiles and such will need to be adjusted to invoke that directly or
> put /usr/lib/go-1.6/bin on $PATH or whatever. (This also means it can
> be installed alongside the golang packages that are already in
> trusty).
> 
> Cheers,
> mwh
> (Hoping that we can now really properly ignore gccgo-4.9 ppc64el bugs!)
> 
> On 17 February 2016 at 07:58, Michael Hudson-Doyle
>  wrote:
>> I have approval for the idea but also decided to wait for 1.6 and upload
>> that instead. I'm also on leave currently so hopefully this can all happen
>> in early March.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> mwh
>>
>> On 17/02/2016 1:17 am, "John Meinel"  wrote:
>>>
>>> To start with, thanks for working on this. However, doesn't this also
>>> require changing the CI builds to use your ppa?
>>>
>>> What is the current state of this? I was just looking around and noticed
>>> golang1.5-go isn't in anything specific for Trusty that I can see. I realize
>>> if its going into an SRU it requires a fair amount of negotiation with other
>>> teams, so I'm not  surprised to see it take a while. I just wanted to check
>>> how it was going.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> John
>>> =:->
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Michael Hudson-Doyle
>>>  wrote:

 Hi all,

 As part of the plan for getting Go 1.5 into trusty (see here
 https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MichaelHudsonDoyle/Go15InTrusty) I've built
 packages (called golang1.5-go rather than golang-go) for trusty in my
 ppa:

 https://launchpad.net/~mwhudson/+archive/ubuntu/go15-trusty/+packages

 (assuming 3:1.5.3-0ubuntu4 actually builds... I seem to be having a
 "make stupid packaging mistakes" day)

 I'll write up a SRU bug to start the process of getting this into
 trusty tomorrow but before it does end up in trusty it would seem like
 a good idea to run the CI tests using juju-core packages built with
 this version of the go compiler. Is that something that's feasible to
 arrange

 The only packaging requirement should be to change the build-depends
 to be on golang1.5-go rather than golang-go or gccgo.

 Cheers,
 mwh

 --
 Juju-dev mailing list
 Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
 Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
 https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
> 


-- 
Juju-dev mailing list
Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev

Re: Go 1.6 is now in trusty-proposed

2016-03-24 Thread Ian Booth 
OMFG that is the best news. We can finally get the Juju LXD provider working
properly on trusty :-D
And first class support for all architectures etc :-D
And no more chasing gccgo issues :-D

Thanks Michael and whoever else helped make this possible.

On 24/03/16 16:03, Michael Hudson-Doyle wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> As of a few minutes ago, there is now a golang-1.6 package in
> trusty-proposed:
> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/trusty/+source/golang-1.6 (thanks for the
> review and copy, Steve).
> 
> One difference between this and the package I prepared earlier is that
> it does not install /usr/bin/go but rather /usr/lib/go-1.6/bin/go so
> Makefiles and such will need to be adjusted to invoke that directly or
> put /usr/lib/go-1.6/bin on $PATH or whatever. (This also means it can
> be installed alongside the golang packages that are already in
> trusty).
> 
> Cheers,
> mwh
> (Hoping that we can now really properly ignore gccgo-4.9 ppc64el bugs!)
> 
> On 17 February 2016 at 07:58, Michael Hudson-Doyle
>  wrote:
>> I have approval for the idea but also decided to wait for 1.6 and upload
>> that instead. I'm also on leave currently so hopefully this can all happen
>> in early March.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> mwh
>>
>> On 17/02/2016 1:17 am, "John Meinel"  wrote:
>>>
>>> To start with, thanks for working on this. However, doesn't this also
>>> require changing the CI builds to use your ppa?
>>>
>>> What is the current state of this? I was just looking around and noticed
>>> golang1.5-go isn't in anything specific for Trusty that I can see. I realize
>>> if its going into an SRU it requires a fair amount of negotiation with other
>>> teams, so I'm not  surprised to see it take a while. I just wanted to check
>>> how it was going.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> John
>>> =:->
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Michael Hudson-Doyle
>>>  wrote:

 Hi all,

 As part of the plan for getting Go 1.5 into trusty (see here
 https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MichaelHudsonDoyle/Go15InTrusty) I've built
 packages (called golang1.5-go rather than golang-go) for trusty in my
 ppa:

 https://launchpad.net/~mwhudson/+archive/ubuntu/go15-trusty/+packages

 (assuming 3:1.5.3-0ubuntu4 actually builds... I seem to be having a
 "make stupid packaging mistakes" day)

 I'll write up a SRU bug to start the process of getting this into
 trusty tomorrow but before it does end up in trusty it would seem like
 a good idea to run the CI tests using juju-core packages built with
 this version of the go compiler. Is that something that's feasible to
 arrange

 The only packaging requirement should be to change the build-depends
 to be on golang1.5-go rather than golang-go or gccgo.

 Cheers,
 mwh

 --
 Juju-dev mailing list
 Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
 Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
 https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
> 

-- 
Juju-dev mailing list
Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev

Re: Go 1.6 is now in trusty-proposed

2016-03-24 Thread Michael Hudson-Doyle 
Thanks :)

Oh yeah, https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/golang-1.6/+bug/1536882
currently has the verification-needed tag -- it would be awesome if
someone (tm) could do some package builds against this version of the
package -- would seem to me to be the ideal SRU verification for
getting the package to migrate to -updates.

Cheers,
mwh

On 24 March 2016 at 19:04, David Cheney  wrote:
> THIS IS FANTASTIC NEWS MICHAEL!
>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Michael Hudson-Doyle
>  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> As of a few minutes ago, there is now a golang-1.6 package in
>> trusty-proposed:
>> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/trusty/+source/golang-1.6 (thanks for the
>> review and copy, Steve).
>>
>> One difference between this and the package I prepared earlier is that
>> it does not install /usr/bin/go but rather /usr/lib/go-1.6/bin/go so
>> Makefiles and such will need to be adjusted to invoke that directly or
>> put /usr/lib/go-1.6/bin on $PATH or whatever. (This also means it can
>> be installed alongside the golang packages that are already in
>> trusty).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> mwh
>> (Hoping that we can now really properly ignore gccgo-4.9 ppc64el bugs!)
>>
>> On 17 February 2016 at 07:58, Michael Hudson-Doyle
>>  wrote:
>>> I have approval for the idea but also decided to wait for 1.6 and upload
>>> that instead. I'm also on leave currently so hopefully this can all happen
>>> in early March.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> mwh
>>>
>>> On 17/02/2016 1:17 am, "John Meinel"  wrote:

 To start with, thanks for working on this. However, doesn't this also
 require changing the CI builds to use your ppa?

 What is the current state of this? I was just looking around and noticed
 golang1.5-go isn't in anything specific for Trusty that I can see. I 
 realize
 if its going into an SRU it requires a fair amount of negotiation with 
 other
 teams, so I'm not  surprised to see it take a while. I just wanted to check
 how it was going.

 Thanks,

 John
 =:->

 On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Michael Hudson-Doyle
  wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> As part of the plan for getting Go 1.5 into trusty (see here
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MichaelHudsonDoyle/Go15InTrusty) I've built
> packages (called golang1.5-go rather than golang-go) for trusty in my
> ppa:
>
> https://launchpad.net/~mwhudson/+archive/ubuntu/go15-trusty/+packages
>
> (assuming 3:1.5.3-0ubuntu4 actually builds... I seem to be having a
> "make stupid packaging mistakes" day)
>
> I'll write up a SRU bug to start the process of getting this into
> trusty tomorrow but before it does end up in trusty it would seem like
> a good idea to run the CI tests using juju-core packages built with
> this version of the go compiler. Is that something that's feasible to
> arrange
>
> The only packaging requirement should be to change the build-depends
> to be on golang1.5-go rather than golang-go or gccgo.
>
> Cheers,
> mwh
>
> --
> Juju-dev mailing list
> Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev


>>>
>>
>> --
>> Juju-dev mailing list
>> Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev

-- 
Juju-dev mailing list
Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev

Re: Go 1.6 is now in trusty-proposed

2016-03-24 Thread David Cheney 
THIS IS FANTASTIC NEWS MICHAEL!

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Michael Hudson-Doyle
 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As of a few minutes ago, there is now a golang-1.6 package in
> trusty-proposed:
> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/trusty/+source/golang-1.6 (thanks for the
> review and copy, Steve).
>
> One difference between this and the package I prepared earlier is that
> it does not install /usr/bin/go but rather /usr/lib/go-1.6/bin/go so
> Makefiles and such will need to be adjusted to invoke that directly or
> put /usr/lib/go-1.6/bin on $PATH or whatever. (This also means it can
> be installed alongside the golang packages that are already in
> trusty).
>
> Cheers,
> mwh
> (Hoping that we can now really properly ignore gccgo-4.9 ppc64el bugs!)
>
> On 17 February 2016 at 07:58, Michael Hudson-Doyle
>  wrote:
>> I have approval for the idea but also decided to wait for 1.6 and upload
>> that instead. I'm also on leave currently so hopefully this can all happen
>> in early March.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> mwh
>>
>> On 17/02/2016 1:17 am, "John Meinel"  wrote:
>>>
>>> To start with, thanks for working on this. However, doesn't this also
>>> require changing the CI builds to use your ppa?
>>>
>>> What is the current state of this? I was just looking around and noticed
>>> golang1.5-go isn't in anything specific for Trusty that I can see. I realize
>>> if its going into an SRU it requires a fair amount of negotiation with other
>>> teams, so I'm not  surprised to see it take a while. I just wanted to check
>>> how it was going.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> John
>>> =:->
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Michael Hudson-Doyle
>>>  wrote:

 Hi all,

 As part of the plan for getting Go 1.5 into trusty (see here
 https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MichaelHudsonDoyle/Go15InTrusty) I've built
 packages (called golang1.5-go rather than golang-go) for trusty in my
 ppa:

 https://launchpad.net/~mwhudson/+archive/ubuntu/go15-trusty/+packages

 (assuming 3:1.5.3-0ubuntu4 actually builds... I seem to be having a
 "make stupid packaging mistakes" day)

 I'll write up a SRU bug to start the process of getting this into
 trusty tomorrow but before it does end up in trusty it would seem like
 a good idea to run the CI tests using juju-core packages built with
 this version of the go compiler. Is that something that's feasible to
 arrange

 The only packaging requirement should be to change the build-depends
 to be on golang1.5-go rather than golang-go or gccgo.

 Cheers,
 mwh

 --
 Juju-dev mailing list
 Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
 Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
 https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Juju-dev mailing list
> Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev

-- 
Juju-dev mailing list
Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev