[09:48] <klattimer> davidbarth: I'm confused about two memory leak bugs #378193 and #405364
[09:49] <klattimer> I see that the former has a fix committed and merge requested which is pending, however in the second bug I see a merge request approved and am wondering if the approved contains both fixes
[09:49] <klattimer> MacSlow: you'll help here too
[09:50] <davidbarth> klattimer: hi
[09:50] <klattimer> :)
[09:50] <MacSlow> klattimer, looking...
[09:50] <klattimer> morning
[09:50] <davidbarth> uh, i remember MacSlow was hunting down mem leaks
[09:51] <davidbarth> but then probably one fix was not passing the QA control
[09:51] <davidbarth> a bit too close to a release and we left it here; MacSlow, remember the details?
[09:52] <MacSlow> klattimer, davidbarth: the real fix to many (if not all) mem-leak issues of notify-osd is to do the abstract notification-object/class (which is in trunk actually already), but I never had the time to hook it all up
[09:53] <MacSlow> klattimer, davidbarth: the idea behind it all is to have only two instances of bubbles at any one time (sync and async) and to all the queue-handling etc. on just the abstract notification-class objects
[09:54] <klattimer> well, what should be done about these two bugs then?
[09:54] <MacSlow> I admit that this is more a "feature" than a bug-fix.
[09:56] <MacSlow> klattimer, I remember that there was a valgrind-hit for GdkPixbuf creation, which I could not track down
[09:56] <MacSlow> klattimer, but I would have to valgrind it again to refresh my brain on the issue.
[09:57] <klattimer> :/
[09:57] <MacSlow> people seem to see it most with covers displayed in notifications
[09:57] <klattimer> hmm
[09:57] <klattimer> well, it seems there's a bit of an issue with this then
[09:58] <klattimer> two high priority bugs exist, which are from an older generation, and a proper fix is on the way
[09:58] <klattimer> which will in some part include a re-write thus making the current debugging information invalid
[09:59] <klattimer> MacSlow: does that sound accurate to you?
[10:00] <MacSlow> klattimer, the GdkPixbuf related leak is still a leak needed to fix... but switching to the abstract notification-object would considerably lessen the leakage.
[10:00] <klattimer> MacSlow: and where is the abstract notification-object on your task list?
[10:02] <davidbarth> hmm, this is where i would trace the line: no structural changes to n-osd this cycle
[10:02] <davidbarth> if there are still a leak or two and they require a structural change, let's document that and switch to something else
[10:03] <MacSlow> klattimer, that class is implemented (wiht unit-tests even)...
[10:03] <davidbarth> people are not really impacted by those leaks, so it's better to do something that makes their work easier than invest in something that has no user benefit
[10:03] <davidbarth> klattimer, MacSlow: makes sense?
[10:03] <klattimer> i was under the impression that the leaks were serious
[10:03] <MacSlow> klattimer, but I would valgrind n-osd, with a few track-switches from rhythmbox...
[10:03] <klattimer> gb's in some cases
[10:03] <davidbarth> so is there a leak that can be fixed given the actual code base?
[10:04] <MacSlow> I believe so
[10:04] <klattimer> yeah
[10:04] <klattimer> trouble is, which branch
[10:04] <klattimer> which branches contain which already patched bits
[10:04] <davidbarth> klattimer: which bug should i mark whislist/later then? i'll be happy to do so, and just leave open the one where you think progresses can still be made with that code base
[10:05] <klattimer> is there a need to merge two branches or not?
[10:05] <MacSlow> klattimer, nope
[10:05] <MacSlow> klattimer, use trunk
[10:05] <klattimer> davidbarth: I think that I can probably get all the leaks reported here
[10:06] <klattimer> MacSlow: then has the branch from https://launchpad.net/bugs/378193 been merged yet?
[10:06] <davidbarth> klattimer: ok, ping me if you want me to do so bug mgt
[10:06] <klattimer> k
[10:06] <klattimer> :)
[10:07] <MacSlow> klattimer, yes
[10:07] <klattimer> oh
[10:07] <klattimer> k
[10:07] <klattimer> trunk it is then
[10:19] <klattimer> davidbarth: I think both #378193 and #405364 can be closed and a new bug opened for "test for memory leaks" as a reminder to do a more recent valgrind
[10:20] <klattimer> it seems as MacSlow is developing on various other parts right now, tracing memory leaks should wait at least until he's satisfied it's the right time
[10:20] <klattimer> MacSlow: does that sound good?
[10:21] <MacSlow> yup
[10:38] <klattimer> MacSlow: have you closed a bunch of high bugs on notify-osd?
[10:39] <MacSlow> klattimer, not in recent times
[10:40] <MacSlow> klattimer, only working on unity
[10:43] <klattimer> ah no worries i got lost in launchpad
[10:51] <davidbarth> klattimer: ok
[13:30] <jcastro> hi klattimer
[13:30] <klattimer> hey sup
[13:30] <klattimer> jcastro: ?
[13:31] <jcastro> keeping busy?
[13:31] <klattimer> quite
[13:31] <jcastro> seb has some bugs for you. :D
[13:31] <klattimer> churning through the notify-osd bugs and sorting them out
[13:31] <klattimer> a lot of the work has already been done
[13:31] <jcastro> klattimer: since we're guadecing we'd figure we'd err on the side of piling too many on your plate
[13:31] <jcastro> oh awesome
[13:31] <klattimer> well assign away ;)
[13:31] <jcastro> I've been travelling all day so please do a detailed report
[13:31] <klattimer> k
[13:32] <jcastro> also, can you CC seb128@ubuntu.com on your reports from now on?
[13:32] <klattimer> sure
[13:32] <jcastro> jawesome
[13:32] <jcastro> how you getting on then?
[13:32] <klattimer> i got round to adding my pgp key and signing the code of conduct on launchpad too
[13:33] <jcastro> rock
[13:33] <klattimer> it's going well mostly been trawling through code seeing if patches have been committed yet
[13:33] <klattimer> seeing what the fastest wins are so I can concentrate on the ones which need some hard work later
[13:34] <klattimer> oh, I did want to ask you, as I can't seem to join the indicator dev team I was wondering what could be done there as ted is away
[13:40] <jcastro> klattimer: you'll need to catch dbarth or mirco or njpatel
[13:40] <jcastro> imo they should just add you
[13:41] <klattimer> k
[13:41] <njpatel> indicator-applet-developers?
[13:42] <njpatel> klattimer, ^
[13:54] <klattimer> njpatel: yeah
[14:01] <Cimi> hi davidbarth
[14:33] <davidbarth> Cimi: hi, got my message about the thursday upload window?
[14:34] <Cimi> yes
[14:34] <Cimi> and replied immediatly
[15:11] <davidbarth> klattimer: ping, i added you to https://launchpad.net/~indicator-applet-developers
[15:12] <davidbarth> Cimi: ok, so for the menu layout part, can you work with bratsche on getting the other changes ready
[15:12] <davidbarth> the patch on dbusmenu should be relatively easy, maybe it can be a style property change
[15:13] <davidbarth> the one with the variable icon size is a bit more tricky, it requires patching libindicator; which bratsche did a while back
[15:13] <davidbarth> bratsche: did you find the branch on your system btw?
[15:17] <klattimer> davidbarth: cool
[15:18] <bratsche> davidbarth: I'll take a look for it.
[15:20] <bratsche> btw, does anyone here have nvidia with two monitors?
[15:20] <bratsche> Could use some help.
[15:31] <Cimi> davidbarth: ok
[15:32] <Cimi> I was looking at few things for the theme
[16:30] <seb128> klattimer, hey
[16:31] <seb128> klattimer, not sure how is your todolist right now
[16:31] <seb128> klattimer, there is still an issue on bug #558841
[16:32] <seb128> klattimer, if you click on desactivate and then active in the applet menu the "visible" item is not listed
[19:18] <chrisccoulson> bratsche, interesting response from mozilla about the linux UI for FF4.0 - http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.apps.firefox/browse_thread/thread/5a77e3e5e58deb52#
[19:18] <chrisccoulson> well, perhaps not interesting
[19:18] <chrisccoulson> but i wonder what they're having difficulty with?
[19:24] <bratsche> Weird, I clicked over from there to this bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=572482
[19:24] <bratsche> Scrolled down some and saw a comment that looked like it was by me.
[19:24] <bratsche> And I was like, "Uhh.. I don't remember writing that comment."
[19:24] <bratsche> But it's not me. :)