[10:27] <micahg> chrisccoulson: BTW, is there a master branch for natty for firefox 5?
[10:30] <Spaceeman> Salut :)
[10:31] <Spaceeman> Peut-on trouver ici des solutions concernant l'utilisation de Thunderbird ? (suis-je au bon endroit?)
[10:33] <chrisccoulson> micahg, https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~mozillateam/firefox/firefox-beta.natty
[10:34] <micahg> chrisccoulson: thanks
[10:35] <micahg> Spaceeman: we generally speak English in this channel :)
[10:39] <Spaceeman> ok, no problemo...
[10:39] <Spaceeman> I speak a litle bit English too...
[10:41] <Spaceeman> I've make a mistake, I think... About "mail button" on right-top, I've installed Thunderbird but Evolution stay launched...
[10:42] <Spaceeman> [10.04]
[10:43] <micahg> I don't think there's any indicator integration on 10.04 for Thunderbird
[10:44] <Spaceeman> Ho... Because I've changed in System → Preferences → "Prefered Applications...", selected Thunderbird for e-mail...
[10:46] <Spaceeman> Then I've clicked on the "mail button right top" and a dialog windows has apeare... asking me about Evolution, if I want it as default client... I've made a mistake then ! I've check the box "don't ask me again" and click Yes ("I wan Evolution as default...") fu**
[10:46] <Spaceeman> But so, the dialog d'ont apear again because I've check the box...
[10:47] <Spaceeman> (have you readed me ?)
[11:09] <fta> chrisccoulson, did you test ch yesterday?
[11:09] <chrisccoulson> fta - not yet, but i did get my VM set up quite late last night
[11:09] <chrisccoulson> i could test that now though
[11:10] <fta> chrisccoulson, please do. i tried on that build on oneiric and it works fine :P i'm lost
[11:10] <fta> -on
[11:12] <micahg> fta: BTW, the oneiric armel build is hung, I'm going to get someone to kill it an lamont to increase the timeout on the native builders for arm, so you can please remove the keep-alive script on your next archive upload? (I already got the non-arm builders up to 3 hours)
[11:16] <fta> micahg, i asked twice to kill it, they ignored me. I fixed the keep alive in trunk and dev already
[11:17] <micahg> fta: cool, thanks, I'll get it killed later today
[11:25] <chrisccoulson> oh, i've had 1 e-mail already from someone notifying me that natty-proposed has the latest firefox beta in it, thinking that it's a mistake
[11:25] <chrisccoulson> do people not understand what "natty-proposed" means when they opt in to it? :/
[11:26] <micahg> chrisccoulson: what's going to be funnier is if that's the final build and it gets pushed to -security :)
[11:27] <chrisccoulson> micahg, heh
[11:27] <chrisccoulson> that's not the final build though, as we'll rebase the code from the release branch
[11:28] <micahg> I thought they said the final build wasn't coming from the release branch this time around
[11:28] <chrisccoulson> is it not?
[11:28] <chrisccoulson> i'm not sure
[11:29] <chrisccoulson> oh, it has too, because the beta builds are enabled with the beta update channel
[11:29] <chrisccoulson> (which in turn, enables test-pilot)
[11:29] <chrisccoulson> **built with the beta update channel enabled (makes more sense)
[11:34] <micahg> well, since we don't use the update channel, in the future if the code is the same, I'd rather disable test pilot on our security uploads and prepare to ship it as the final build
[11:35] <micahg> otherwise there's no point in pushing to proposed or the security PPA until the final build is done (which is too late IMHO)
[11:58] <chrisccoulson> micahg, we use the update channel to enable test-pilot
[11:59] <chrisccoulson> security uploads won't have test-pilot enabled because they won't come from the beta channel
[11:59] <chrisccoulson> this is different, because we've uploaded a build from the beta channel
[12:26] <micahg> chrisccoulson: yes, but if that's the only difference between the beta and final release, I'd want to disable test pilot early and get more extended testing
[12:27] <chrisccoulson> micahg, i'm not sure what you mean. the release builds will never have it enabled (which is what will be uploaded to ubuntu-mozilla-security in the future)
[12:28] <micahg> chrisccoulson: what I mean is that if there is no code difference between the final beta and the release build, I want to upload the final beta as the release build for us
[12:29] <chrisccoulson> hmmm, we shouldn't do that. our build should be based on the code that they tag for release (which IIUC will be on a different branch)
[12:31] <chrisccoulson> bhearsum can probably tell us what happens next for firefox 5 ;)
[12:33] <micahg> chrisccoulson: if the plan is to do that the final week, that's not good enough, especially if there's no code difference, I"ll speak with leagnitto after this release to try to work out what's happening upstream,
[12:33] <bhearsum> hello!
[12:34] <chrisccoulson> hi bhearsum
[12:34] <chrisccoulson> so, we're all confused
[12:34] <chrisccoulson> we're trying to work out what the next stage of the process is for releasing firefox 5 :)
[12:36] <bhearsum> sure
[12:36] <bhearsum> so, at this point we think we're code complete, and 5.0b5 is the last thing we're planning to release to the beta audience
[12:36] <bhearsum> next week, we're going to merge mozilla-beta -> mozilla-release, and rebuild off of the same changeset
[12:36] <bhearsum> (the only difference will be the update channel we set)
[12:37] <chrisccoulson> ok, that's pretty much what i thought would happen :)
[12:37] <bhearsum> oh, and there's no Test Pilot in the build, either
[12:37] <chrisccoulson> bhearsum, yeah, that's why i thought there would have to be another build (to switch update channel and turn off test-pilot)
[12:37] <bhearsum> yep, you got it
[12:38] <bhearsum> in the future, we're talking about doing some sort of repack to change those things
[12:38] <bhearsum> but that won't happen for 5, and probably not 6 either
[12:38] <chrisccoulson> bhearsum, so, i guess there will be a few days between you tagging the release branch for release and actually releasing it?
[12:38] <micahg> right, so in the future, we (Ubuntu) should disable test pilot on the final beta so that we can have extended testing on the same build
[12:38] <bhearsum> i'm not 100% sure when we're building, to be honest. but it'll be sometime next week, because we're releasing a week from tuesday
[12:39] <chrisccoulson> micahg, well, we should just upload the release build to our PPA when mozilla start doing their build
[12:39] <chrisccoulson> i'd rather not start manually switching things off for the last build (which might end up not being the last build). all of that stuff happens automatically for us, without me having to do anything ;)
[12:40] <micahg> leagnitto's calendar has it scheduled for jun 15
[12:40] <micahg> chrisccoulson: I'd rather have an extra week of user testing on the final build
[12:41] <chrisccoulson> hmmm, well, that's probably not something i'm going to be doing though. the beta builds i provide are destined for the firefox-next PPA, and as such will have test-pilot enabled.
[12:41] <bhearsum> micahg: 15th for doing the build?
[12:41] <micahg> bhearsum: yep
[12:41] <bhearsum> huh, sounds like you have better info than me!
[12:41] <chrisccoulson> i don't want to start switching it on and off, as firefox-next users will get pretty confused :)
[12:41] <micahg> chrisccoulson: that's fine, I'll do the uploads to the security PPA then
[12:41] <micahg> bhearsum: https://mail.mozilla.com/home/clegnitto@mozilla.com/Firefox%205.html
[12:41] <bhearsum> ha
[12:43] <chrisccoulson> bhearsum, this appeared within about 30 minutes of us staging the beta - http://askubuntu.com/questions/48035/why-is-natty-proposed-suggesting-an-upgrade-to-a-beta-version-of-firefox ;)
[12:43] <chrisccoulson> i'm surprised :)
[12:44] <micahg> bhearsum: are you saying that test pilot is off in beta 5?
[12:45] <bhearsum> micahg: nope - it's on
[12:45] <micahg> ok
[12:45] <micahg> yeah, so, we'll need another build :(
[12:46] <bhearsum> brb
[12:47] <micahg> chrisccoulson: actually, I'm going to replace the beta next week with the final build in proposed
[12:49] <chrisccoulson> micahg, why?. remember that the first build after the merge from beta -> release hasn't had any testing by anyone. isn't that a bit risky?
[12:49] <micahg> chrisccoulson: because I want user testing on what's going to -security
[12:50] <micahg> and this beta didn't have any testing either when you uploaded it ;)
[12:50] <chrisccoulson> micahg, well, the channel has had testing for several weeks (it wasn't the first build from that channel)
[12:50] <chrisccoulson> you're talking about uploading the first build straight after a merge, which nobody has tested ;)
[12:50] <chrisccoulson> i woudn't choose to do that, but that's up to you i guess ;)
[12:51] <micahg> I don't see much choice, I can wait one day
[12:54] <micahg> I guess I need to ask about that since the package versioning will be the same as final
[12:54]  * micahg e-mails legnitto
[12:56] <chrisccoulson> we definitely don't want anything suggesting a beta version in the version number of our release packages, even if it is the release build. be prepared for constant e-mails from people and having to explain how it's not really a beta if you do that ;)
[12:56] <chrisccoulson> i had the same with the RC of firefox 4
[12:56] <bhearsum> back
[12:56] <chrisccoulson> people kept asking me why we still had the RC in the archive, weeks after release
[12:57] <chrisccoulson> in the end, i just caved in and did another upload, just to change the version number of the package ;)
[12:57] <bhearsum> chrisccoulson: to be fair, the "merge" that's going to happen is more of a "overwrite mozillla-release with mozilla-beta"
[12:57] <bhearsum> it just happens to be called a merge in hg nomenclature :)
[12:57] <chrisccoulson> bhearsum, ok, that's not so bad
[12:58] <micahg> chrisccoulson: I might version the beta builds differently, I need to see how this plays out in the "final" versioning
[12:59] <micahg> but what I do know is we want as much testing as possible on these builds, so I"m going to do what I can to make that happen
[13:03] <chrisccoulson> fta - i tested the chromium build from your PPA on natty, and i don;t see the same issue as before
[13:04] <chrisccoulson> but it still doesn't really work properly (I get a frame every 5 seconds or so), but i'm not sure if that's a virtualbox issue ;)
[13:04] <chrisccoulson> i guess i should try downgrading again
[13:10] <chrisccoulson> oh, downgrading chromium didn't work too well :(
[13:10] <chrisccoulson> i get a cache read error on every page i've previously visited :/
[13:28] <fta> uh
[13:29] <fta> chrisccoulson, when i downgrade, i usually test with --temp-profile so it doesn't touch my own stuff
[13:32] <fta> dpm, hi, the ca@valencia patch landed a few days ago in trunk, could you ask whoever is concerned to test with the dailies?
[13:50] <fta> bug 588044 588050 588062 590705 590699
[13:50] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 588044 in launchpad "lp API not reporting copied packages" [Low,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/588044
[13:50] <fta> grrr
[13:51] <fta> bug 588050 bug 588062 bug 590705 bug 590699
[13:51] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 588050 in launchpad "green builds not visible in mixed series" [Low,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/588050
[13:51] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 588062 in launchpad "Expose date_started for builds" [Low,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/588062
[13:51] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 590705 in launchpad "New Build api exposed via 'beta' rather than 'devel'" [Medium,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/590705
[13:51] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 590699 in launchpad "IBuildFarmJob.date_first_dispatched is None" [Medium,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/590699
[13:51] <fta> Triaged most probably mean i-don't-care
[13:51] <fta> +s
[14:07] <chrisccoulson> bhearsum, what will the release branch be called btw? is it going to be releases/mozilla-release ?
[14:09] <bhearsum> hmmm, i'm not 100% sure but i would bet on releases/mozilla-release
[14:10] <chrisccoulson> ok, thanks
[14:11] <bhearsum> i'll let you know when i find out :)
[14:25] <chrisccoulson> oh, i just saw https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=645288. i guess we should do that too :)
[14:25] <ubot2> Mozilla bug 645288 in Installer "Associate the webm file extension with Firefox" [Normal,Verified: fixed]
[14:50] <dpm> fta, ca@valencia confirmed to be working in the dailies
[14:51] <fta> dpm, good, we just need the chromium_strings template now then i can whitelist it in the next stable release
[14:51] <fta> (and i will need to backport the fix too)
[14:53] <dpm> fta, what do you mean "we need chromium_strings template"? Is this something for the ca@valencia translator to do?
[14:54] <fta> dpm, yes, https://translations.launchpad.net/chromium-browser/translations/+lang/ca@valencia
[14:55] <fta> dpm, the desktop file would be nice to have too
[14:57] <dpm> fta, ok, let me take care of the desktop file, that's just a matter of minutes
[14:57] <dpm> we'll take care of the other template too
[14:58] <fta> thanks
[15:11] <dpm> fta, what's the current situation with the 'inspector-strings' template? Are the inspector translations loaded already? I seem to remember you told me that it wasn't working when we first opened translations
[15:12] <fta> dpm, upstream doesn't want it translated so no effort has been made to fix the problem
[15:12] <fta> i should probably remove it
[15:13] <dpm> fta, oh, did they give any particular reason for not wanting it translated?
[15:14] <fta> dpm, well, most devs speak english.. also, my poll showed little interest
[16:14] <fta> dpm, just curious, why did you stop at 3 out of 6 strings?
[16:17] <dpm> fta, I started doing the ca@valencia translation, then realized I should do the ca one as well, finished that one, and then got sidetracked ;)
[16:17] <fta> oh, ok
[16:20] <fta> dpm, fyi, i will upstream another batch of 500 strings later today, on top of the 21000+ already upstreamed
[16:21] <dpm> fta, cool
[16:27] <fta> dpm, i guess there's still a gap though. i never touched the extra per lang locale_settings_linux pref. so i assume some of the new lang we've introduced look weird
[16:27] <fta> langS
[16:27] <fta> prefS
[16:28] <fta> probably all non-ascii
[16:29] <fta> i meant, iso-latin15
[16:30] <fta> like the default fonts & sizes: http://git.chromium.org/gitweb/?p=chromium.git;a=blob_plain;f=chrome/app/resources/locale_settings_linux.grd;hb=HEAD
[16:31] <fta> and the dialog sizes: http://git.chromium.org/gitweb/?p=chromium.git;a=blob_plain;f=chrome/app/resources/locale_settings.grd;hb=HEAD
[16:32] <fta> dpm, ^^
[16:36] <dpm> fta, we should perhaps reach out to the teams from these new langs and explicitly ask for testing and feedback?
[16:37] <fta> dpm, yep, but i don't see how they could experiment with those without patching & building :(
[16:38] <dpm> fta, well, we can start small and first of all ask them to test if the in current builds the size of fonts and dialogs look ok for them
[16:41] <fta> dpm, maybe ask each team to provide a screenshot in their lang, providing a model (showing the main ui with a page & some dialogs)
[16:42] <fta> dpm, ..so we can see for ourselves which langs need work in priority
[16:43] <dpm> fta, yeah, that'd be a start. Do you have a list of new languages I should start contacting teams for?
[16:47] <fta> dpm, ast ca-valencia eo eu gl hy ka ku ug   (but some have just a few strings)
[16:49] <dpm> ok, let me write the teams an e-mail (we can get ca-valencia out of the list, as it has the same metrics as ca)
[19:05] <fta> micahg, gasp, after the timeouts, it's the out-of-memory :(
[19:05] <fta> micahg, i really need gold
[19:06] <fta> (who doesn't?) ;)
[19:39] <micahg> fta: well, I still need to talk to doko, will have to do that monday, is this for 14 or earlier?
[19:58] <fta> micahg, M14 died 3 times already in the last few days, wgrant told me it's OOM. i guess some builders have less memory
[20:00] <chrisccoulson> g'ah, hate mono
[20:13] <chrisccoulson> hah - po2xpi: Development -> Abandoned!
[20:13] <micahg> fta: yeah, do you know which builders?  I can see about increasing the RAM maybe
[20:13] <micahg> RAM or swap
[20:14] <fta> micahg, pluot just died M14/oneiric/amd64
[20:14] <fta> +on
[20:15] <micahg> fta: k, will research with lamont
[21:07] <fta> micahg, M14 is now buildable with gcc 4.6
[21:07] <micahg> fta: awesome
[21:08] <micahg> now we just need to make sure we don't lose support for 4.4 over the next 2 years :)(
[21:12] <fta> won't happen, upstream supports the LTS
[21:13] <fta> micahg, please add http://videojs.com/ to your regression tests. there's a yellow banner at the top when html5 video is not supported
[21:15] <micahg> fta: cool, thanks
[21:15] <micahg> I'm about to run chromium through now (was off the last 2 days)
[21:29] <fta> micahg, http://people.ubuntu.com/~fta/chromium/html5-video.png
[21:30] <micahg> fta: cool, can I add that png to our documentation?
[21:31] <fta> sure
[21:32] <micahg> thanks
[21:32] <fta> both are chromium, natty in the back, oneiric in the front
[21:52] <fta> micahg, 'king' was able to link. could you check how much memory 'king' and 'pluot' have?
[22:14] <micahg> fta: yep
[22:30] <chrisccoulson> micahg - did you see i subscribed you to the natty release branch? i did a bit of housekeeping with all of our branches ;)
[22:32] <micahg> chrisccoulson: no, I don't see it
[22:32] <chrisccoulson> oh, i wasn't sure if you get notifications when someone else subscribes you to a branch
[22:33] <micahg> but thanks
[22:39] <chrisccoulson> finally, moonlight is working on natty :)
[23:13] <micahg> chrisccoulson: any idea on bug 795766
[23:13] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 795766 in firefox "FF Sync: Wrong password but it is the correct password." [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/795766
[23:18] <fta> bug 794976
[23:18] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 794976 in apport "ubuntu-bug opens Firefox when Chromium is the default web browser" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/794976
[23:19] <micahg> that sounds like an old problem
[23:20] <micahg> but apport probably doesn't use x-www-browser but xdg-open
[23:26] <JanC> there is also the setting in GNOME (or whatever DE)