pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: pmrep(1) remaining items for 3.10.9

To: myllynen@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: pmrep(1) remaining items for 3.10.9
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 20:48:49 -0500 (EST)
Cc: pcp developers <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <565F5A50.90509@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1060274380.32244034.1449022508195.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <565F5A50.90509@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: B82dRMJ9ffSkwUgQiPk+UQsE1PKZCQ==
Thread-topic: pmrep(1) remaining items for 3.10.9

----- Original Message -----
> Hi,
> 
> On 2015-12-02 04:15, Nathan Scott wrote:
> > 
> > I've pushed through the first big batch of your pmrep changes now.
> 
> awesome, thanks!
> 
> > think we still need:  a version# in the config file (somehow?  see my
> > IRC q from overnight - first line? [options]?),
> 
> That would be easy and something that is used elsewhere as well, an
> example from sssd.conf(5):
> 
>     config_file_version (integer)
>         Indicates what is the syntax of the config file. SSSD 0.6.0 and
>         later use version 2.

Sounds good to me, lets go with that.  Shall I hack on this, or do you
want to tackle it?

> > the pmrep.conf.5 man page (sounds like you have that under control)
> 
> Yup, "90% done" ;)
> 
> >, and the non-options handling should switch to the pmOption API
> 
> The patch I sent was to unify naming:
> 
> http://oss.sgi.com/pipermail/pcp/2015-November/008795.html

(yep, in my pending pile, should arrive today)

> But there was an issue which doesn't allow using it for this case:
> 
> http://oss.sgi.com/pipermail/pcp/2015-December/008835.html

See update in BZ, I think/hope its still feasible.

> > Are there any other pmrep items before the initial release?
> 
> I'm thinking of the following:
> 
> - sync my latest local copy with upstream, few minor improvements
> (coming after this email)

Taa, merged all those here.

> - fix get_cmd_line_metrics() (see above)

Yep, hopefully can be done still.

> - possibly merge the unit/scale and raw config fields (they can't be
> used together anyway so makes it a bit simpler and is also matches
> fetchgroup interface)
> 
> And if you think things like changing decimals -> precision would be
> worth in the config file (as you did in the man page), we could still do it.

Oh good point, yeah - I just went with the words used on other man pages 
pmlogsummary(1), pmdumptext(1)... up to you, but sounds like a good idea
to me.

> What was the current schedule for 3.10.9 btw?
> 

http://pcp.io/roadmap

> > In terms of the zbxsend module issues, after poking around the python
> > code you pointed me to (thanks) I think it does make sense to pull it
> > into pmrep for now - fixing the py3 issues, packaging issues, etc.  It
> > is very small, very simple, and will make life significantly simpler
> > for both users and us as developers.  So I went ahead and did that, as
> > well as a handful of other small changes - please review 'em & update
> > as you see fit, thanks!
>
> Hmm, ok, I see you embedded it, I was thinking to have it as a separate
> "pcpzbxsend" or such module to keep it separated to make it clear how we
> deviate from upstream. Anyway, I'll send a separate email with a patch
> to fix the remaining py3 issues still in it.

Thanks, all good now - yeah, embedding seemed easier from a build/install
POV & since its such a small amount of code.

> Yes, something to provide your custom config options (if any), then use
> the common code to get the wanted results and have few callbacks to
> handle them as you like. But let's think about this more later.

*nod*

cheers.

--
Nathan

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>