https://codereview.appspot.com/9824047/diff/1/worker/provisioner/provisioner_task.go#newcode304
worker/provisioner/provisioner_task.go:304: // Don't return a real
error, just try again next time.
On 2013/06/11 09:08:21, fwereade wrote:
> This is problematic, because the watcher won't report that machine
again until
> it changes -- which it won't. For this to work, we need the
provisioner to be
> restarted regularly... but I'm hoping for a provisioner that can run
for weeks
> without breaking sweat.
OK, reverted.
https://codereview.appspot.com/9824047/diff/1/worker/provisioner/provisioner_task.go#newcode360
worker/provisioner/provisioner_task.go:360: // info if config becomes
invalid.
On 2013/06/11 09:08:21, fwereade wrote:
> Honestly, I think this is sufficient justification to nuke the whole
> provisioner; it'll be restarted in a few seconds, and for now I'd
rather not
> even try to provision a machine (which can be expected to cost our
users actual
> money) unless I'm as sure as I can be that I'll be able to start a
functioning
> machine agent...
Please take a look.
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/9824047/ diff/1/ worker/ provisioner/ provisioner_ task.go provisioner/ provisioner_ task.go (right):
File worker/
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/9824047/ diff/1/ worker/ provisioner/ provisioner_ task.go# newcode304 provisioner/ provisioner_ task.go: 304: // Don't return a real
worker/
error, just try again next time.
On 2013/06/11 09:08:21, fwereade wrote:
> This is problematic, because the watcher won't report that machine
again until
> it changes -- which it won't. For this to work, we need the
provisioner to be
> restarted regularly... but I'm hoping for a provisioner that can run
for weeks
> without breaking sweat.
OK, reverted.
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/9824047/ diff/1/ worker/ provisioner/ provisioner_ task.go# newcode360 provisioner/ provisioner_ task.go: 360: // info if config becomes
worker/
invalid.
On 2013/06/11 09:08:21, fwereade wrote:
> Honestly, I think this is sufficient justification to nuke the whole
> provisioner; it'll be restarted in a few seconds, and for now I'd
rather not
> even try to provision a machine (which can be expected to cost our
users actual
> money) unless I'm as sure as I can be that I'll be able to start a
functioning
> machine agent...
OK, nuking in progress.
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/9824047/