15:00:16 <shertel> #startmeeting Ansible Core Public IRC Meeting
15:00:16 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Sep  2 15:00:16 2021 UTC.
15:00:16 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
15:00:16 <zodbot> The chair is shertel. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:16 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
15:00:16 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'ansible_core_public_irc_meeting'
15:00:19 <shertel> hello
15:00:28 <zodbot> shertel: Error: Can't start another meeting, one is in progress.
15:00:36 <shertel> oops
15:00:48 <shertel> #info agenda https://github.com/ansible/community/issues/628
15:01:16 <shertel> #chair mkrizek
15:01:16 <zodbot> Current chairs: mkrizek shertel
15:01:25 <sivel> howdy
15:01:26 <shertel> I had one for the agenda today if anyone else is around
15:01:31 <mkrizek> \o
15:01:32 <shertel> hello \o
15:01:33 <briantist> hi!
15:01:35 <shertel> #topic https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/75468
15:02:02 <shertel> So this is doing two things, 1) fixes ignoring HTTPError exceptions when installing/downloading a collection while getting available versions, which was intended, and 2) handling unexpected errors more flexibly (but with a warning).
15:02:56 <shertel> I'm wondering for the latter if the warnings are too noisy, or if there are objections to handling unexpected errors similarly
15:03:39 * shertel still needs to add a changelog
15:03:57 <sivel> what happens if they all fail unexpectedly?  Would the error at the end be sufficient?  Move the warning to some higher verbosity?  Just some thoughts, by way of questions :)
15:04:46 <sivel> I'm fine with it as is.  I know people hate warnings for some reason.  I don't have a problem with the warning
15:05:37 <shertel> I could move the warning to a higher verbosity ouptut for debug purposes. I don't have a strong opinion either, but yes, people don't seem to like warnings
15:06:18 <sivel> I've approved the PR as is
15:06:26 <shertel> Cool, thank you!
15:06:37 <tadeboro> I am one of those people that hate warnings, but only in situations where I know something will fail and I cannot silence them.
15:07:10 <tadeboro> For example, if I know one version is missing from the first server but will be available on the second one, I would like to silence that first warning if possible.
15:08:02 <sivel> I think that would fall under a HTTPError right?
15:08:03 <shertel> if a version is missing but the server is functional, that is generally an HTTPError
15:08:11 <sivel> yeah, so it wouldn't warn
15:08:27 <shertel> (which has no warning, but will error if the collection couldn't be found on any server)
15:08:46 <tadeboro> Then ignore me since this is the exact behavior I would like to see.
15:09:38 <shertel> if the first server is offline/broken, would you want a warning you can't individually toggle?
15:11:28 <mkrizek> would it make sense/be possible for all those `unknown_err`s to be consolidated and printed in one warning instead of each per loop item?
15:11:45 <sivel> I wouldn't add another individual config toggle. I despise those :)
15:12:48 <sivel> I think an individual warning per host is best. If anyone else is like me, I'm more likely to read many short warnings, instead of 1 long warning.  Plus the count gives you a good idea about multiple problems
15:12:50 <shertel> sivel: Yeah :)
15:12:51 <sivel> my 2c
15:14:14 <tadeboro> shertel: I do not need individual toggles for things like offline server since all I really care is that my collection got installed.
15:14:31 <shertel> tadeboro: okay, cool
15:16:21 <shertel> sivel:  by 'per host' do you mean per server, or per collection? The warning is emitted per collection.
15:17:48 <shertel> I could consolidate the warning to once per server
15:17:56 <sivel> Well, I guess it's per server per collection right?
15:18:12 <shertel> yeah
15:18:18 <sivel> I think it's fine the way it is. No need to overthink it now.  If people complain, we can worry later :)
15:18:35 <shertel> Okay, thanks
15:18:44 <shertel> #topic open floor
15:18:45 <sivel> My intent was to say, that the individual warnings will make it more clear in the end
15:19:00 <shertel> yeah, that makes sense
15:19:15 <shertel> thanks all for weighing in
15:20:13 <shertel> Anyone else have something to discuss? If not I'll end in 5
15:20:26 <bcoca> 3 .2 .1
15:20:57 <shertel> :)
15:24:01 <shertel> #endmeeting