[02:17] <joelesko> micahg: I remove proposal from lp:seamonkey and proposed against mozillateam/seamonkey.oneiric
[02:18] <joelesko> micahg: I hope that is what you meant. I would be happy to test on oneiric and there are others that would as well.
[02:18] <micahg> joelesko: um, that's not what I meant I don't think, I meant a second merge proposal for oneiric, is that what you did?
[02:19] <joelesko> I don't think so. I proposed against lp:~mozillateam/seamonkey/seamonkey.oneiric
[02:19] <joelesko> That is the only branch I saw with oneiric.
[02:19] <joelesko> Sorry, I'm still a little confused about the work flow.
[02:20] <micahg> joelesko: right, we need one against .head to go into precise, then one to go into oneiric, can you repropose the branch for precise (let's make sure it builds), then we can push to oneiric?
[02:21] <micahg> joelesko: sorry for the confusion
[02:21] <joelesko> So do I just update the change log for precise? I haven't tested that yet, although I don't think there will be issues.
[02:21] <micahg> joelesko: yeah, that's where the update needs to go first (and I can do that tonight)
[02:22] <joelesko> micahg: great. I'll take care of it right now.
[02:22] <micahg> joelesko: thanks
[02:22] <micahg> keffie_jayx: great!  what type of stuff can you help with?  (bugs, testing, packaging)?
[02:33] <joelesko> micahg: submitted proposal against .head for precise. I also built package for precise and uploaded to my ppa.
[02:34] <joelesko> micahg: do I need to test on precise first before change can go to oneiric?
[02:37] <micahg> joelesko: no, I don't think so, if oneiric tests out ok, I'm fine pushing even if precise if broken w/the same codebase (but we're trying to not leave the devel release broke this cycle, so if it is broke, we should try to fix it)
[02:39] <joelesko> micahg: ok. It's already building on i386. Last time it took like 2 days to build. I think something was wrong with launchpad builder in November
[06:39] <joelesko> micahg: 2.5 builds on karmic through precise
[06:39] <joelesko> micahg: let me know when you want it tested.
[06:39] <micahg> joelesko: karmic has been dead for 6 months :)
[06:40] <joelesko> mint people asked for karmic
[06:40] <micahg> joelesko: well, their Desktop isn't getting security updates anymore, idk why they'd care about an updated browser
[06:40] <micahg> unless the mint people are patching CVEs for karmic :)
[06:41] <joelesko> micahg: I don't know either. Since launchpad was still able to build it, I submitted it.
[06:41] <joelesko> I should say mint users.
[06:43] <joelesko> That was a mod I put in the rules to check if version was less than 10.10, not to use the new asm instructions.
[06:43] <joelesko> I was suprised to see that seamonkey did build and when I tested it, it worked.
[06:46] <joelesko> I'll create my precise test vm tonight to try SM on it.
[06:48] <micahg> ok, is that patch included in the precise merge or in a local folder?
[06:50] <joelesko> It's part of the rules file. http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~joe-nationnet/seamonkey/seamonkey-beta/revision/266
[06:51] <joelesko> micahg: When you get a chance, can you create the beta branch?
[06:51] <micahg> joelesko: yeah, sorry, thought I did that
[06:53] <joelesko> micahg: Let me know when it's done and I can propose my beta branch. The beta has all the seperate commits like you requested.
[06:54] <micahg> ok, I'll push a branch after I merge the precise chnge
[06:54] <micahg> *change
[06:54] <joelesko> great. thanks
[07:14] <micahg> joelesko: does the beta branch have the individual commits for the precise stuff as well?
[07:14] <micahg> I notice your 3 commits in the .head merge look all very large
[07:15] <joelesko> Except for the last 2 where I changed from UNRELEASED to oneiric and precise
[07:15] <micahg> that should really stay UNRELEASED until you're sure no changes need to be made :)
[07:15] <micahg> I'll just roll them back
[07:15] <joelesko> The 2 last commits were small.
[07:18] <micahg> ok, let me push the beta branch then so we can keep the history
[07:20] <micahg> joelesko: lp:~mozillateam/seamonkey/seamonkey-beta.head
[07:24] <joelesko> I proposed my beta to beta.head
[07:27] <joelesko> micahg: In order to build the release, the config/branch.mk file will need to be updated in order to pull from release channel instead of the beta channel.
[07:27] <joelesko> Wasn't sure how you normally handle that. I did it after the beta merge into the dev branch.
[07:27] <micahg> ok, that was your second to last commit in the release branch, right?
[07:28] <joelesko> Yes
[07:28] <micahg> joelesko: well, it shouldn't be in future diffs, so the first merge, I usually manually back it out with a comment, then it shouldn't show up anymore
[07:29] <joelesko> oh, duh.. how do I do the blush character...
[07:31]  * micahg doesn't remember...
[07:31] <micahg> pidgin made these things easier
[07:31] <joelesko> I always like simple solutions. Thanks micahg
[07:33] <joelesko> So should I cancel the propose on the .head branch? It's really all in the beta.
[07:36] <micahg> joelesko: sure, that's fine
[07:37] <joelesko> micahg: this is starting to make sense. I like how you had me do the atomic commits on the beta and didn't want them to get lost with the .head merge
[07:38] <joelesko> I thought the entire changelog needed to be in each atomic commit for the .head release
[07:38] <micahg> nope :), individual commits make it easier to cherry pick and revert
[07:40] <joelesko> micahg: agree. I thought that is what you wanted.
[07:41] <joelesko> I cancelled the propose on the .head release. Tomorrow, I'll start on 2.6b
[07:42] <micahg> joelesko: ok, sounds good
[07:43] <joelesko> micahg: so can I pretty much just stay on the beta and you and handle the merge to the .head release till I have a better understanding of hoe you do it?
[07:43] <joelesko> *how
[07:43] <micahg> joelesko: let's coordinate the weekend before release (Dec 18 or so) if that's ok, I'd prefer to hand that off to you as well :)
[07:45] <joelesko> Ok, I'm up for that. I'll be on holiday so my schedule will be open
[07:46] <micahg> cool, thanks
[07:47] <micahg> joelesko: BTW, you might want to set DEBFULLNAME in ~/.bashrc so it shows up in your changelog
[07:48] <joelesko> thank you. Updated DEBFULLNAME
[07:53] <micahg> joelesko: BTW, in bazaar.launchpad.net/~joe-nationnet/seamonkey/seamonkey-beta/revision/266 I think you meant 10.04, not 11.04, but I'm rolling that revision back as we shouldn't be taking patches for karmic (encouraging people to run unsecure operating systems is not something Mozilla does, nor should we)
[07:56] <joelesko> micahg: I'm always happy to comply with that request. Just when someone asks and if it's a minor change and does not affect other releases, I'll put it in.
[07:56] <joelesko> The beauty of open source.
[07:57] <micahg> heh :), I'd just like to keep it out of our team branches, if you want to do it for your own PPA, that's your call :)
[08:01] <joelesko> Well, on one of my systems I'm stuck on maverick till unity or gnome-shell gets a little better. Dual monitors and xpdf being totally broken is keeping it there
[08:01] <micahg> joelesko: that's fine, maverick is supported until April
[08:02] <micahg> both unity and gnome-shell in oneiric should be pretty solid
[08:02]  * joelesko shivers and not just because it's cold :)
[08:04] <joelesko> I do like both of them, just some issues with dual monitors and nvidia. Didn't like something with the layout and couldn't find a way to fix. gnome-shell was making some headway on it. Not sure about unity.
[08:05] <micahg> joelesko: you should also watch out for commits like this: http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~joe-nationnet/seamonkey/seamonkey-beta/revision/259, I usually do "clean up changelog" commits separately, so that fixes can be cherry picked (at least I think I do :))
[08:14] <micahg> joelesko: http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~joe-nationnet/seamonkey/seamonkey-beta/revision/261 seems wrong, Firefox needed the second patch that you dropped still to built on powerpc I believe
[08:18] <micahg> joelesko: would you want to fix these issues before I merge?
[08:30] <joelesko> I checked 261 against the upstream version and those patches were applied.
[08:34] <joelesko> Agree on 259. I was getting used to new method of handling code.
[08:36] <joelesko> micahg: How do you cherry pick commit in bzr?
[08:36] <micahg> bzr diff -c REVNO
[08:37] <joelesko> thanks
[08:41] <micahg> joelesko: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/5847fed34267 and http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-release/file/463b6cbdef7c/js/src/Makefile.in#l439, were you thinking on the 2.6 beta?
[08:41] <micahg> that patch landed in 9/2.6
[08:43] <joelesko> I am almost positive when I looked at the source code of 2.5, those patches were already applied. If you try and apply them, you will see the build fails because they were applied.
[08:43] <micahg> joelesko: right, that doesn't mean that they're necessarily applied upstream (unless it tells you that it's a reverse diff)
[08:44] <joelesko> I believe that is what you get.
[08:44] <micahg> hmm, did you have the correct 2.5 tarball?  could you have pulled a 2.6 beta by accident?
[08:45] <joelesko> I pulled the tarball 3 times. Unless something is wrong with the python code
[08:50] <micahg> that could be :), chrisccoulson has made a lot of changes to improve that code since your initial import (one of the reasons I'm not ready to backport this yet :))
[08:53] <joelesko> ok. Going to get some zz's
[08:55] <micahg> joelesko: ok, so, should we try again tomorrow evening or do you have another branch ready?
[09:53] <chrisccoulson> joelesko, the work you're putting in to keeping seamonkey alive on ubuntu is greatly appreciated btw :)
[09:55] <micahg> I'll second that :)
[14:28] <joelesko> chrisccoulson: micahg said you made changes to the python downloader scripts. Where is the best place to look at them. The ones in SM seem like they have a problem.
[14:29] <joelesko> I compared the release tar against the python checkout script and they are indeed different, not sure what would be causing that.
[14:31] <joelesko> micahg:  chrisccoulson: Since I never plan to do nightlies, can I just pull the source tars from the mozilla repo?
[17:54] <chrisccoulson> hi joelesko
[17:54] <joelesko> chrisccoulson: hi
[17:55] <chrisccoulson> the problem with using the upstream tarball is that you still need a script to strip some files from it (eg, windows executables, pyc files etc)
[17:55] <chrisccoulson> and you also lose the ability to build translations too
[17:55] <chrisccoulson> what differences are you finding?
[17:56] <joelesko> chrisccoulson: there seems to be a problem with the way the package is built. micahg told me of an issue last night and when I checked he was correct
[17:57] <joelesko> I did a diff against the original tar and the one that was generated and some files were pulled from the tip instead of the tag
[17:58] <chrisccoulson> yeah, i know why :)
[17:59] <joelesko> micahg said you changed the python scripts. What do I need to do to fix the seamonkey create-tarball?
[18:00] <joelesko> you know why! That's great, this project is so confusing on where they pull all the code from.
[18:01] <chrisccoulson> joelesko, http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~mozillateam/thunderbird/thunderbird-trunk.head/revision/457?remember=455&compare_revid=455
[18:04] <joelesko> no way. thanks!! That's where I messed up. I put an update -r after the do_exec.
[18:06] <joelesko> chrisccoulson:  I'll fix the beta branch and try again. Thanks for the help
[18:07] <chrisccoulson> you're welcome :)
[18:53] <micahg> chrisccoulson: is there any problem taking this extra hunk in the KDE patch on beta? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox/+bug/885836/+attachment/2621902/+files/firefox_kde_savefile.patch
[18:53] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 885836 in opensuse "firefox-kde-support breaks right click > save image as..." [Medium,Confirmed]
[18:54] <chrisccoulson> micahg, well, i don't really care too much about that patch, and i'm probably just going to drop it for precise anyway
[18:54] <chrisccoulson> i don't particularly want to support that for 5 years
[18:55] <micahg> chrisccoulson: ok, could you please guide debfx on what he needs to do (if this is in the realm of possibility) to get this upstream
[18:56] <micahg> chrisccoulson: also, it a functionality regression for natty upgraders, the problem is, I don't want to take the patch without beta coverage for the security update (since this is supposed to be where our major regression testing is happening)
[18:57] <micahg> chrisccoulson: I definitely agree about not wanting to carry it for 5 years
[18:59] <chrisccoulson> g'ah, nightly sucks at the moment
[19:06] <chrisccoulson> let's see if a restart fixes the constant stutters
[19:08] <chrisccoulson> hah, 220MB with 20 tabs open
[19:08] <chrisccoulson> beta that chrome!
[19:09] <chrisccoulson> **beat
[19:13] <FernandoMiguel> 14972       732990           20        60854K         1.2G       491.2M          1.2G       491.2M       fernando        fernando         6%       chrome
[19:13] <FernandoMiguel> one tab olny
[19:15] <FernandoMiguel> Browser	 Private	 Proportional
[19:15] <FernandoMiguel> Chrome
[19:15] <FernandoMiguel> 959,852k	143,829k
[19:15] <FernandoMiguel> 14939	
[19:16] <FernandoMiguel> Browser
[19:16] <FernandoMiguel> 100,656k	106,582k
[19:16] <FernandoMiguel> pick one LOL
[19:25] <micahg> chrisccoulson: so, can I merge the KDE fix for now to all the branches and we'll worry about whether or not to leave it on in precise later?
[19:27] <micahg> chrisccoulson: also, I'm commit‌ting http://launchpadlibrarian.net/86490977/firefox_9.0~b4%2Bbuild1-0ubuntu1_9.0~b4%2Bbuild1-0ubuntu2.diff.gz to the beta branch, do you want me to make the debian/control change anywhere else?
[19:31] <chrisccoulson> sigh, i didn't even realize that had been uploaded
[19:31] <chrisccoulson> it need to go to lp:firefox first
[19:32] <chrisccoulson> all changes do, else they will disappear on the 20th :)
[19:32] <micahg> chrisccoulson: right, well, I just pushed to beta to keep the upload history
[19:32] <micahg> I can push to lp:firefox and aurora as well
[19:32] <micahg> we probably need a similar change for thunderbird I'm guessing unless it already has the dep
[19:35] <debfx> chrisccoulson: *sigh* you don't think your intention to drop the kde integration patches might be worth sharing with kubuntu?
[19:40] <micahg> chrisccoulson: do you have any uncommitted changes on trunk?  I was going to push the locales fix
[19:40]  * micahg just realized he did it wrong...
[20:11] <chrisccoulson> micahg, probably not :)
[20:11] <chrisccoulson> debfx, will you help keep this patch unbroken on the nightly builds?
[20:11] <micahg> unpushed I mean (last entry I have is Nov 29)
[20:11] <chrisccoulson> micahg, yeah, that's the last one. the branch basically takes care of itself now ;)
[20:12] <micahg> chrisccoulson: ok, I'll push to trunk, aurora, and beta
[20:22] <micahg> ok, firefox should be cleaned up for the locales thing now
[21:28] <micahg> chrisccoulson: when I get back later, I'll commit a fix for the latest powerpc failure for precise (I won't upload)
[21:31] <micahg> chrisccoulson: BTW, is it worth trying to get these build failure fixes on aurora, or can we carry the patch for 6 more weeks?