[00:00] <cwillu> and I specifically don't see what unityshell is doing that changes the behaviour of move
[00:00] <cwillu> (et al)
[01:27] <cwillu> Trevinho, a quick test has revealed that lazy positioning is being defeated by a new'ish lock in move.cpp with a big fixme saying "It MUST be removed after 0.9.6 when we can [...] do lazy positioning correctly!"
[01:28] <cwillu> (added a printf to both sides of the branch that handles the individual move events, and every time compiz is hung, there's a slew of non-lazy)
[01:36]  * cwillu will try reverting https://code.launchpad.net/~compiz-team/compiz-core/compiz-core.fix_860304/+merge/77156 locally tomorrow
[02:14] <Trevinho> cwillu: good testing...
[06:12] <didrocks> good morning
[06:14] <cwillu> Well, a quick hack to ignore the lock hasn't blown anything up yet;  I'm sure it'll reintroduce a bunch of Fix Released bugs though
[07:01] <oSoMoN> good morning
[07:36] <cousin_luigi> Cimi__: hello
[07:37] <cousin_luigi> Cimi__: Someone on #ubuntu-devel suggested to tell you about a small problem with gnome-session-fallback, namely the need to remove appmenu-gtk and appmenu-gtk3 to solve this http://i.imgur.com/SWwLI.jpg .
[07:39] <cousin_luigi> bbl
[09:48] <davidcalle> Hi kamstrup, anything I can do to  help pushing the pygobject SRU? :)
[10:22] <Andy80> I'm giving Gnome 3.2 a try... there are things that we should just copy, that's it :\
[10:23] <Andy80> and of course other things I don't like of it
[10:55] <kamstrup> davidcalle: you can poke tomeu or j5 on #python on GIMPNet to review the patch, or punk pitti into puttin up a test ppa or something...
[10:58] <mardy> Saviq: hi, I'm still working on the spread keyboard navigation, and I found another problem: https://bugreports.qt.nokia.com/browse/QTBUG-21999
[10:59] <Saviq> mardy: looks related to my "missing label" experience
[10:59] <mardy> Saviq: it affects us, because when a workspace is zoomed in, if it has just two windows and you press "down", the focus is lost to another workspace which is not currently visible
[11:00] <mardy> Saviq: and it seems that I cannot workaround it (at least, so far I could come up with a decent solution)
[11:00] <Saviq> +not
[11:00] <mardy> Saviq: so I thought of this simple "solution":
[11:01] <mardy> Saviq: when the zoomed workspaces looses focus, it unzooms
[11:02] <mardy> Saviq: another solution would be to zoom to the workspace which got the focus, but I'm afraid it will be more confusing
[11:02] <Saviq> first one's better, IMO, but we need to prevent navigating to an empty workspace, /methinks
[11:03] <Saviq> or somehow indicate which workspace has focus
[11:03] <mardy> Saviq: I think that that will not happen, but I'll double check
[11:03] <Saviq> mardy: it does happen now, if you go down from the last window in a workspace
[11:03] <Saviq> the label is gone
[11:03] <Saviq> and focus looks lost
[11:05] <Saviq> mardy: hrm... ok now I think I get it... you don't want to move away from current workspace at all
[11:05] <Saviq> not with navigation keys, at least
[11:05] <Saviq> Tab / Shift+Tab, then?
[11:06] <Saviq> for me the most intuitive experience would be to treat all of the windows together as ~ one grid
[11:06] <Saviq> and Tab / Shift+Tab on top of that to move between the workspaces
[11:06] <mardy> Saviq: in my branch, the focus is never lost if the current workspace has more than 3 windows (because it has at least two columns, and two rows)
[11:07] <Saviq> yup, got it
[11:07] <Saviq> that's what you filed as the bg
[11:07] <mardy> Saviq: in other cases, it can get lost, but I don't know how to prevent this
[11:07] <mardy> Saviq: so I'm thinking of what the best way to deal with this situation is
[11:08] <Saviq> mardy: first thing, IMO - indicating currently focused workspace
[11:08] <Saviq> with some glow, or dimming the other ones
[11:08] <mardy> Saviq: that's indicated by the label, already
[11:08] <Saviq> only if there's a window in that wspace
[11:08] <mardy> Saviq: oh, right
[11:09] <Saviq> also, it seems now that if there are no windows in a workspace, you still need to click twice to get to it
[11:09] <Saviq> I don't particularly like the two-clicks to get to a window, myself
[11:10] <Saviq> I'd rather have a single click take me to my window directly, but that, I assume, is design decision
[11:11] <Saviq> mardy: in your Test.qml, you could have another empty cell in the "big" grid
[11:12] <Saviq> to see that the focus gets there
[11:12] <Saviq> and yeah, actually preventing from going to an empty wspace would be wrong
[11:12] <Saviq> you couldn't access it at all without a mouse
[11:12] <Saviq> u3d has an orange glow around current wspace
[11:14] <Saviq> and empty ones are desaturated
[11:16] <Saviq> mardy_: I'll paste in PM
[11:22] <Saviq> mardy_: tbh I'd disable keyNavigationWraps on both grids, looks more intuitive to me
[11:22] <Saviq> or at least in the inner ones
[11:25] <Saviq> with some complicated hackery on pressed keys with we could probably have a single-grid-like experience
[12:15] <davidcalle> kamstrup, thanks
[14:05] <apinheiro> njpatel, this bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/unity/+bug/843280
[14:05] <apinheiro> is marked as SRU0
[14:05] <njpatel> yep
[14:05] <apinheiro> but although I merged it last week, AFAIS, it is not included on unity/4.0
[14:05] <njpatel> really?
[14:05] <njpatel> damn
[14:05] <njpatel> didrocks, ^
[14:05] <njpatel> distropatch?
[14:06] <apinheiro> njpatel, ok, I will look debian/patches
[14:06] <njpatel> apinheiro, can you please merge it into lp:unity/4.0 now?
[14:07] <apinheiro> should I wait first for didrocks?
[14:08] <didrocks> njpatel: apinheiro: sure merge
[14:08] <apinheiro> njpatel, ^
[14:08] <apinheiro> didrocks, ok
[14:08] <didrocks> njpatel: I'll pick with the unity-panel-service patch
[14:09] <njpatel> thanks
[14:10] <apinheiro> didrocks, so, in the end, should I merge this on lp:unity/4.0 or not?
[14:10] <didrocks> apinheiro: yes please, in lp:unity and unity/4.0
[14:15] <apinheiro> didrocks, it is already merged on lp:unity
[14:15] <apinheiro> so this is the reason I was asking about what to do with /4.0 ;)
[14:17] <didrocks> apinheiro: yeah, merge into it please
[14:18] <apinheiro> njpatel, didrocks well, it seems that it is already merged
[14:18] <apinheiro> I was just looking to the log, and I didn't find
[14:18] <apinheiro> that commit
[14:18] <apinheiro> sorry for the noise
[14:19] <njpatel> apinheiro, ah, okay
[14:20] <didrocks> apinheiro: great, it needs a test case then
[14:20] <didrocks> njpatel: ^
[14:20] <didrocks> steps to reproduce for the SRU
[14:21] <apinheiro> didrocks, a test case to reproduce the bug?
[14:21] <didrocks> apinheiro: yeah, like 1. enable a11y, 2…
[14:21] <didrocks> apinheiro: people needs to confirm it's fixed in the SRU bug
[14:23] <apinheiro> didrocks, hmm, it seems complex, as it was a race condition
[14:23] <apinheiro> https://bugs.launchpad.net/unity/+bug/843280/comments/7
[14:24] <didrocks> apinheiro: ok, at least, ask to ensure that after xxx run, there is no more crash
[14:24] <didrocks> apinheiro: edit the description to state that
[14:25] <apinheiro> didrocks, btw, should I change the status from Fix Committed to Fix Released?
[14:25] <didrocks> apinheiro: not yet, we didn't change the upstream status as 4.24 is buggy
[14:26] <apinheiro> didrocks, ok
[14:26] <apinheiro> so I should change the description from "unity-panel-service crashed with SIGSEGV in g_closure_invoke()" to something like "unity-panel-service crashed with SIGSEGV in g_closure_invoke() solved on 4.24"?
[14:26] <apinheiro> didrocks, ^
[14:28] <didrocks> apinheiro: not needed, just change the description (not bug title, the description which is the first comment) to "should be fixed in 4.24, ensure you don't get any crash after 5 sesssion restarts" for instance
[14:29] <apinheiro> didrocks, ok
[14:31] <didrocks> thanks :)
[14:31] <apinheiro> njpatel, btw, as now the master is for 5.0
[14:31] <apinheiro> can I start to make the merge proposals for those huge a11y branches?
[14:32] <apinheiro> or should I wait
[14:32] <apinheiro> until things get lets in a rush for finalizing 4.24?
[14:32] <apinheiro> s/lets/less
[14:33] <njpatel> apinheiro, right
[14:33] <njpatel> yes, you can make proposals for lp:unity
[14:35] <pippo> can i kill who have invented unity user interface please??
[14:35] <pippo> i hati it
[14:35] <pippo> *hate
[14:36] <apinheiro> njpatel, ok, thanks
[14:38] <greyback> Saviq: have you Unity3d handy? Can you check if Alt+F1 remembers state there? As in, Alt+F1, press down a few times, Escape, press Alt+F1 again. What is highlighted?
[14:38] <Saviq> greyback: alt+f1 doesn't work in u3d
[14:38] <Saviq> greyback: but I agree, it should reset to the dash icon
[14:38] <greyback> Saviq: Me too. Just wanted to check. Thanks. Merge req on its way
[15:02] <Saviq> greyback: I'll review your launcher fixes tomorrow, have no head for it at that point of the day and don't want to mess it up
[15:02] <greyback> Saviq: no problem. It took me a long time to get it working nicely (IMO anyway).
[15:10] <nerochiaro> does anyone know if the items returned by bamf_matcher_get_running_applications are ordered in any specific way ?
[21:57] <jderose> congrats everyone on a beautiful 11.10 release! really fantastic work :-D
[22:48] <Andy80> Trevinho: ping!