<fwereade> katco, cool -- broadly sane in your estimation?
 * wallyworld_ afk for a bit to have breakfast etc
 * katco has a good... "not manager but manages people"
<waigani> menn0: I don't follow. why the wrong order?
<katco> fwereade: yes absolutely
<menn0> waigani: if you upgrade from 1.20 to 1.21alpha3 the steps for alpha1 are run, then alpha2, then alpha3
<fwereade> katco, excellent, so long as it really is
<menn0> waigani:  the steps for alpha3 have the machine and instancedata upgrade
<fwereade> katco, it's your job to tell me when I'm being crazy
<fwereade> katco, everyone else's too ofc
<katco> fwereade: do i constrain my comments to professional work?
<menn0> waigani: which means the steps for alpha1 and alpha2 have trouble because they sometimes need to be able to look up machines
<menn0> waigani: because the running software is actually alpha3
<katco> fwereade: ;)
<menn0> waigani: the steps shouldn't be split out by alpha version
<fwereade> katco, I'm grinning broadly but not yet able to formulate a coherent response
<waigani> menn0: got it
<menn0> waigani: I'm fixing now.
<menn0> waigani: alpha3 is being held up until this is sorted (should be easy though)
<katco> fwereade: haha ok good the joke made it across OK. that pause is always nerve wracking :p
<waigani> menn0: I've hit a really interesting bug, in the process of hunting it down. A test failed once I merged the machines branch with the sequences branch. I'll touch base with you on it later
<menn0> waigani: ok cool
<perrito666> ok EOD, have a nice one people
<menn0> wallyworld_: if we have upgrade steps defined for 1.21 (final) they currently won't run when an upgrade to a 1.21 alpha or beta release happens
<menn0> wallyworld_: I can tweak the upgrade steps logic to ignore the release tag (i.e. alpha/beta)
<menn0> wallyworld_: or we can define the upgrade steps against alpha1
<menn0> wallyworld_: I prefer the former
<menn0> wallyworld_: but it does reduce our flexibility a little
<menn0> wallyworld_: what do you think?
<wallyworld_> menn0: my