[02:04] <justjinxed> so is 1.4 million votes enough for developers to decide to allow users to move the unity bar? ;)
[02:41] <thumper> justjinxed: where are these theoretical 1.4 million votes?
[02:42] <thumper> justjinxed: however it is more complicated than that
[02:42] <thumper> it isn't the developers blocking it, but the designers
[02:44] <justjinxed> My question is more an IF than IS. Id like to know how to contact the responsible parties. I've read a number of varying opinions from the "team" but it's hard to pinpoint if any of them are an authority or not.
[02:46] <justjinxed> and now I must run for now, :( guess ill come back tomorrow and finish hunting them down :)
[07:55] <sil2100> Trevinho: give me a sign when you're around
[07:57] <popey> sil2100, he'll be around from ~14UTC
[07:57] <sil2100> grrr
[07:57] <sil2100> Thanks
[08:33] <smspillaz> anyone on this channel with an intel chip willing to test something quickly for me ?
[08:33] <smspillaz> intel graphics hardware
[08:42] <didrocks> sil2100: hey, I hope you are looking at the merge request and what I'm currently doing as soon, it will be your turn to do it :)
[08:42] <didrocks> popey: FYI ^
[08:43] <sil2100> didrocks: which MRQ?
[08:43] <didrocks> sil2100: all of them, and the packaging update I'm doing, what is failing and such
[08:43] <sil2100> didrocks: since I'm looking at the Ibus one right now
[08:43] <didrocks> sil2100: I mean, you need to monitor all merge request, look at when/why they are failing…
[08:44] <sil2100> didrocks: ok, looking at those as well, but I have to deal with some unity-lens thing right now
[08:45] <didrocks> sil2100: indeed, but that shouldn't prevent monitoring merge requests :)
[08:45] <didrocks> juts a kind reminder, I won't remind you anymore of this then ;)
[08:45] <sil2100> didrocks: but please do, since otherwise I won't know that I screwed up again ;) And we don't want that happening too frequently!
[08:46] <didrocks> sil2100: well, I will reject the upload then, so you will learn that way ;)
[08:46] <sil2100> ;)
[08:47] <Mirv> smspillaz: o/ , although a meeting soon
[08:47] <smspillaz> Mirv: thanks, though I found a volunteer
[08:47] <Mirv> smspillaz: ok, great
[08:49] <sil2100> seb128: hi!
[08:49] <seb128> sil2100, hey, how are you?
[08:50] <sil2100> seb128: fine, although it's really hot here in Poland, how about you?
[08:50] <sil2100> The heat is killing me
[08:50] <seb128> sil2100, I'm good, weather is just nice here (around 23°C)
[08:51] <sil2100> seb128: remember the SRU for unity-lens-video that we made last week?
[08:51] <seb128> sil2100, yes, it got accepted yesterday
[08:51] <seb128> is there an issue with it?
[08:52] <sil2100> seb128: no, no issue, but David found another fix
[08:52] <seb128> sil2100, for what issue?
[08:53] <sil2100> I mean, the busy dbus issue that was seemingly fixed with this version - he found one more place where the bug might happen and fixed it yesterday as well
[08:53] <sil2100> So it would be nice if we could release, ekhm, another SRU with the one more fix...
[08:53] <sil2100> ...would that be possible?
[08:53] <davidcalle> seb128, dbus crash, there is a second dbus call in the code (for zeitgeist). I missed it last week.
[08:54] <davidcalle> seb128, sorry about that.
[08:54] <seb128> davidcalle, no worry
[08:54] <seb128> sil2100, yes, just do an update on top of the previous one
[08:54] <sil2100> seb128: is there a specific branch I should use? Or you don't care about bzr history?
[08:56] <seb128> sil2100, don't care about the history for the SRU
[08:56] <seb128> sil2100, but you can use the vcs for the quantal upload
[08:56] <sil2100> seb128: will do! Thanks
[08:56] <seb128> yw!
[09:15] <sil2100> seb128: https://code.launchpad.net/~sil2100/unity-lens-videos/unity-lens-video-precise <- I pushed here again
[09:17] <mhr3> sil2100, btw for lenses != music, you'll just patch the icon paths? (/me hopes he doesn't need to do releases because of that)
[09:18] <sil2100> mhr3: no, I just patched those
[09:18] <mhr3> \o/
[09:23] <sil2100> didrocks: just a quick question - if there is a green signal from everyone about unity stack trunk freeze, you're able to freeze it for a day? Or is there someone else I'll have to ask then?
[09:24] <didrocks> sil2100: no, just tell me when to freeze :)
[09:24] <didrocks> sil2100: and tell me for which projects I need to freeze
[09:24] <didrocks> (once ok)
[09:24] <sil2100> didrocks: thanks! For now I need to resolve this ibus issue though... need Trevinho for that best
[09:24] <didrocks> mhr3: it sucks to have to change the image path name btw at every new major version of unity
[09:24] <didrocks> yep :)
[09:26] <mhr3> didrocks, indeed, thoughts on where to centralize it?
[09:26] <didrocks> mhr3: I don't get why the path need to be versionned in fact
[09:26] <mhr3> didrocks, that makes two of us :)
[09:26] <MCR1> Hi :) Who is maintaining the Unity-team/staging PPA quantal ? Unity is broken there: Depends: compiz-core-abiversion-20120305
[09:26] <didrocks> mhr3: \o/
[09:27] <didrocks> MCR1: the ppa is automatic
[09:27] <mhr3> didrocks, perhaps a "current" symlink if nothing else ?
[09:27] <didrocks> MCR1: as told on it, it can have temporary ABI break and shouldn't be used
[09:28] <mhr3> didrocks, i mean instead of the version number
[09:28] <didrocks> you want a symlink to the current version number?
[09:28] <didrocks> I'll try to start the discussion and discuss about that
[09:28] <mhr3> whatever to get of it
[09:29] <didrocks> and maybe we can discuss even more about the discussion
[09:29] <sil2100> didrocks, mhr3: maybe we'd like to have that for this release?
[09:29] <didrocks> :)
[09:29] <didrocks> sil2100: no, the timing is too short
[09:29] <mhr3> sil2100, yea... i don't think all of us are that fast :)
[09:29] <didrocks> sil2100: let's transition, and maybe transition again
[09:29] <sil2100> didrocks: ok
[09:29] <didrocks> (from 5 to 6 to I hope unversionned)
[09:30] <MCR1> The PPA also features a new Compiz version I would like to try to give feedback on fixed bugs, but the ABI break makes it impossible to test Unity with it :(
[09:30] <didrocks> MCR1: yeah, you need to ensure you have compiz and unity built against the same ABI version
[09:31] <didrocks> the ABI break should be transient and fixed automatically when you get the next unity rebuild
[09:31] <sil2100> hm, the nux/unity fix for ibus that Trevinho is recommending seems to change the nux API
[09:31] <didrocks> MCR1: that's why I put this stenza on the ppa description:
[09:31] <didrocks> This archive contains the latest builds generated from trunk, that have passed the unit tests, but didn't pass the user acceptance (autopilot) tests yet.
[09:31] <didrocks> Unless you are a developer and know what you do here, you should probably use the "unity-team/ppa" instead.
[09:32] <MCR1> Will it work if I build Unity from source ?
[09:32] <didrocks> MCR1: yeah, get the compiz from the ppa, install the -dev package and rebuild unity from source
[09:32] <didrocks> or wait for the next unity version coming to the ppa
[09:32] <MCR1> ok, thx a lot 4 the info.
[09:32] <didrocks> MCR1: yw :)
[09:32] <didrocks> sil2100: not an issue, you plan to merge the nux bump to version 3, right?
[09:33] <didrocks> I still didn't see the packaging changes for it
[09:33] <didrocks> and the branch isn't merged yet but I think it's on your roadmap
[09:33] <sil2100> didrocks: I have it all prepared locally, since I'll have to refresh it when the freeze is on
[09:34] <didrocks> sil2100: hum, you don't have the branch which defines the API version 3, right?
[09:34] <sil2100> didrocks: right now I can't do anything because I don't know if any important changes won't need to be merged in
[09:34] <didrocks> it's not merged AFAIK
[09:34] <didrocks> so not sure what you prepared
[09:35] <sil2100> didrocks: it's not, since it's waiting for right-before-the-freeze - since nux and unity need to have the 3.0 change merged in the same time, otherwise unity auto-merger won't work
[09:35] <didrocks> sil2100: yeah, but it doesn't need to be right before the freeze
[09:35] <didrocks> you do the nux work, push the branch, approve the merge
[09:35] <didrocks> then, you do the unity work, push the branch, approve the merge
[09:36] <sil2100> didrocks: but with unity and nux we still wait for the ibus fix to get reviewed
[09:37] <didrocks> sil2100: that's not a pre-requesite to this change, right?
[09:37] <MCR1> Is there a wiki or even better a script somewhere that helps me with building Unity from source ?
[09:37] <sil2100> didrocks: yes, but we want unity to be able to perform auto-build after merging the ibus fix, right?
[09:38] <sil2100> didrocks: once I merge in the 3.0 changes it won't build
[09:38] <sil2100> didrocks: or does the autobuilder use the nux trunk for building unity?
[09:38] <didrocks> sil2100: why?
[09:38] <didrocks> sil2100: it always take the new version of everything
[09:39] <didrocks> we won't be able to do without it otherwise
[09:39] <sil2100> didrocks: so it's not using -proposed? Just fresh from the trunks?
[09:39] <didrocks> remember my "local repo" I showed and emphasized many teams during the week sprint :)
[09:39] <didrocks> yeah
[09:39] <didrocks> they are constantly adding API, without that, the merger won't work
[09:39] <sil2100> Still, since we want to release a new tarball, I'd like to have all the changes in the tarball
[09:40] <didrocks> sil2100: what's the link with that?
[09:40] <sil2100> So, if I release the new tarball now, and then add the ibus fix, I'll have to add it as a patch, right?
[09:40] <didrocks> I don't speak about a release
[09:40] <didrocks> I'm speaking about 2 branches to merge
[09:40] <didrocks> to bump the new api
[09:40] <didrocks> and also, about the packaging update you need to do for it
[09:40] <sil2100> Ah, k
[09:41] <didrocks> you can do that right now instead of waiting on the ibus fix :)
[09:41] <sil2100> I was talking about the packaging update
[09:41] <didrocks> packaging udpate != tarball
[09:41] <didrocks> so, what you need to do:
[09:41] <sil2100> But on the other hand, I could probably for now just do a packaging update with normal patches
[09:41] <didrocks> - ensure jay's nux branch is ok, pushing an updated packaging for version 3, approve the nux merge
[09:41] <sil2100> And then just release everything as a new tarball
[09:42] <didrocks> - ensure jay's unity branch is ok, pushing an updated packaging for version 3, approve the unity merge
[09:42] <didrocks> and that's it
[09:42] <sil2100> Well, we were already testing Jay's branch
[09:42] <didrocks> why are you speaking about patches? :/
[09:42] <sil2100> Since my ppa uses nux 3.0 now anyway
[09:42] <didrocks> I'm speaking about merge in trunk
[09:42] <sil2100> Yes, but with the merge to trunk we need to do a merge to packaging too, right?
[09:42] <didrocks> but they are not merged in trunk, right?
[09:42] <didrocks> yeah
[09:42] <didrocks> that's why I'm telling, doing it now
[09:42] <didrocks> and approving the trunk merge
[09:42] <sil2100> They are not, but those won't work if you don't merge into packaging, right?
[09:43] <didrocks> now
[09:43] <didrocks> :)
[09:43] <sil2100> So that's why I'm taalking about packaging
[09:43] <didrocks> 11:41:57   didrocks | - ensure jay's nux branch is ok, pushing an updated packaging for version 3, approve the nux merge
[09:43] <sil2100> That's what I'll do now
[09:43] <didrocks> and same for unity
[09:43] <didrocks> thanks :)
[09:43] <didrocks> ping me to review your packaging update
[09:43] <sil2100> As I said, we already tested nux 3.0
[09:43] <didrocks> and that I push it
[09:43] <sil2100> So it'll just be an easy task
[09:44] <didrocks> great
[09:44] <didrocks> sil2100: there is no difference than any other package update
[09:44] <didrocks> you see that I'm updating a lot the packaging in advance of time
[09:44] <didrocks> like because of new files
[09:44] <didrocks> or because of path changes
[09:44] <didrocks> that's exactly the same case here
[09:44] <didrocks> (or new build-dep)
[09:51] <sil2100> didrocks: sorry about that, now when I think about it I could have really just pushed it sooner
[09:51] <didrocks> sil2100: no worry, hope you get it now ;)
[09:51] <didrocks> it's really like any other package update
[09:51] <sil2100> didrocks: I just seemed to got locked-up in the idea that I need to wait with the packaging for the tarball
[09:51] <didrocks> sil2100: fortunatly not :)
[09:52] <sil2100> didrocks: that it doesn't make sense to push it now if the tarball will be released later ;p
[09:52] <didrocks> sil2100: at least, we will get this hopefully merged and built before trevhino is here for the ibus thingy
[09:52] <didrocks> just ping me with the package update
[09:53] <sil2100> didrocks: the thing is that I thought that it's not good to do it without the new tarball - since we're essentially changing the name to nux-3.0, where the version number in packaging will be still 2.*
[09:53] <didrocks> sil2100: no
[09:53] <didrocks> sil2100: you are changing the packaging now
[09:53] <didrocks> and we will push it just before setting the merge proposal to approve
[09:53] <didrocks> and so, we will get the new packaging :)
[09:54] <sil2100> Just to get this straight - can I change the major number of the nux version to 3 ?
[09:54] <sil2100> In packaging?
[09:57] <sil2100> Since normally, when changing the major number, I was doing a merge-upstream with the new tarball
[09:59] <sil2100> didrocks: ^ ;)
[10:01] <didrocks> sil2100: right
[10:01] <didrocks> sil2100: change the packaging and push it to me :)
[10:08] <MCR1> didrocks, regarding: https://code.launchpad.net/~mc-return/compiz/compiz.merge-plugin-stackswitch/+merge/111736 - do you mean our discussion here ?
[10:09] <didrocks> MCR1: no, was in private with duflu
[10:09] <didrocks> (PM)
[10:09] <MCR1> ah, ok - *confused*
[10:10] <sil2100> didrocks: https://code.launchpad.net/~sil2100/nux/ubuntu-3.0 <- ;) ?
[10:10] <sil2100> brb
[10:11] <didrocks> MCR1: basically, we are using the packaging to build an upstream source to push to the ppa, as you added some files and nobody updated the package, it failed
[10:11] <didrocks> MCR1: now, it's fine
[10:11] <MCR1> didrocks: I am working on getting *forgotten* plug-ins to lp:compiz, we did not have that problem with workspacenames though
[10:12] <MCR1> but if it is fine now, it is great 8-)
[10:12] <MCR1> thanx
[10:13] <didrocks> yw :)
[10:13] <didrocks> sil2100: looks good to me :)
[10:16] <didrocks> sil2100: pushed, you can ack the nux merge now
[10:41] <sil2100> didrocks: approved
[10:41] <sil2100> (commit message was missing)
[10:41] <sil2100> ;)
[10:42] <didrocks> sil2100: well, you approved it before pushing the branch, thanks god you forgot the commit message :)
[10:43] <sil2100> didrocks: I did? I think I did that by accident - damn, good for that missing commit message...
[10:58] <sil2100> didrocks: eh, conflict
[10:58] <sil2100> Oh, right, but I can push to that branch actually
[10:59] <sil2100> Fixing
[11:06] <MCR1> Yeah, my second contribution to Ubuntu/Compiz: http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~compiz-team/compiz/0.9.8/revision/3277
[11:06] <MCR1> :)
[11:10] <MCR1> btw, I also got a contribution for Unity: https://code.launchpad.net/~mc-return/unity/unity.merge-reduce-png-filesizes/+merge/110978
[11:28] <didrocks> MCR1: sweet! let's wait for upstream to review them :)
[11:29] <didrocks> MCR1: btw, about the recompression, we already have that automatically on the binary package
[11:29] <MCR1> didrocks: It is nothing special, but probably should be done
[11:29] <MCR1> your png files are not compressed very well
[11:30] <MCR1> I used Trimage image compressor to optimize them
[11:30] <MCR1> ofc more could be done
[11:31] <MCR1> most of the files could use indexed colors as well (8bit instead of 24+8bit) without any visual regression as most of the files do not use more than 256 colors anyway
[11:31] <MCR1> and alpha is empty
[11:32] <sil2100> didrocks: I also prepared a distro branch for unity 6.0 with the new nux: https://code.launchpad.net/~sil2100/unity/ubuntu-6.0
[11:33] <sil2100> But nux is still building
[11:33] <MCR1> didrocks: You can check it yourself: simply install the package trimage and drag and drop all .png files there
[11:33] <didrocks> MCR1: hum, weird, we maybe have dh_scour which is broken then
[11:33] <MCR1> didrocks: you will save around 80kB
[11:33] <didrocks> sil2100: well, that's fine, we can ack it now
[11:33] <didrocks> sil2100: as my dep system is working :)
[11:34] <didrocks> sil2100: FYI, I'm merging you content
[11:34] <didrocks> sil2100: as you didn't get the latest unity packaging branch
[11:35] <MCR1> Once I got my build and test system for Unity/Compiz working here I plan to help with fixing more important stuff as well :)
[11:35] <didrocks> sil2100: libnux-3.0-dev (>= 3.0.0-0ubuntu1), is somewhat wrong as a build-dep
[11:35] <didrocks> MCR1: sweet!
[11:36] <didrocks> sil2100: better to take 3.0.0 to enable backporting
[11:36] <didrocks> sil2100: I'm fixing that
[11:37] <sil2100> didrocks: ah, ok, sorry about that
[11:37] <didrocks> sil2100: and you dont' want to bump the version yet on that case :)
[11:38] <sil2100> You mean, unity to 6.0?
[11:38] <didrocks> sil2100: yeah
[11:38] <didrocks> do that once you will release :)
[11:38] <didrocks> sil2100: pushed to lp:ubuntu/unity
[11:38] <didrocks> you can approve the MR
[11:39] <sil2100> Why not now? Since I already bumped the version for nux to 3.0, right? So we theoretically could have done the same for unity?
[11:39] <didrocks> sil2100: because merge-upstream won't be happy
[11:39] <didrocks> sil2100: I didn't change it for nux but it should have been 3.0~something
[11:40] <didrocks> sil2100: because now, the version in the staging ppa are higher than the revision that would be in the distro
[11:40] <sil2100> Ah, right, we'll have to do the trick you did with compiz on the sprint
[11:40] <didrocks> it will be 3.0+bzr<foo>
[11:40] <didrocks> even if they are older
[11:41] <sil2100> Right
[12:32] <sil2100> didrocks: the tests failed for the unity nux-3.0 branch
[12:32] <sil2100> Could not open X display?
[12:32] <didrocks> sil2100: there is no X in the merger
[12:32] <sil2100> xvfb?
[12:33] <didrocks> yep
[12:33] <didrocks> sil2100: you should check that with upstream
[12:33] <didrocks> seems a test is flacky or broken with the new nux :)
[12:34] <sil2100> But it doesn't even say which test failed, geh
[12:34] <sil2100> I'll pick this up with Jay once he's back
[12:35] <didrocks> sil2100: well, all the output is from upstream, they should fix it to tell which one :)
[12:37] <sil2100> Annoyiiiing!
[12:37] <sil2100> ;)
[12:37] <didrocks> heh ;)
[13:07] <sil2100> seb128: how's the unity-lens-video SRU branch? Was it ok?
[13:08] <seb128> sil2100, sorry I was out when you pinged and I got busy, I will have a look now
[13:08] <sil2100> seb128: thanks
[13:12] <seb128> sil2100, yw!
[13:52] <sil2100> Trevinho: regarding that ibus fix
[13:52] <sil2100> Trevinho: was that something that got recently introduced? That it's broken?
[13:53] <sil2100> Trevinho: and I see you modify the nux headers
[13:54] <Trevinho> sil2100: we had some issues... first of all we didn't properly filter the meta keys in textentry, also we didn't support ibus release activation key... so I wanted to change the thing from nux...
[13:57] <sil2100> Trevinho: well, I'm waiting for Brandon as well to be honest - I have some bug-related things for him!
[13:58] <sil2100> But anyway, I think that it would be REALLY nice to have this ibus thing fixed with 6.9
[13:58] <sil2100> *6.0
[13:59] <sil2100> So I'd say it's a bit of a blocking issue - although if jaytaoko will think that it's a risky change or something, we'll then release without it
[13:59] <Trevinho> sil2100: code is fixed... so... we only have to get it in trunk :)
[13:59] <sil2100> Trevinho: ;)
[14:00] <didrocks> Trevinho: is it a regression from 5.x ?
[14:00] <sil2100> Trevinho: but commits on both sides are needed, right? Bot the nux and unity side
[14:01] <Trevinho> didrocks: mhmh a little... I pushed a different branch in 5.0 that fixes the key filtering without changing nux and being a little bit permissive to avoid breakage...
[14:01] <Trevinho> sil2100: yes, we need both nux and unity
[14:02] <didrocks> sil2100: so it's a regression, and we won't take it into quantal without the bug fixed :)
[14:04] <jaytaoko> Trevinho: so you are trying to get your branches in for this release?
[14:04] <sil2100> didrocks: so it's, like I said, a blocking issue then? But for reals ;)
[14:04] <sil2100> jaytaoko: well, it seems to be an urgent fix then
[14:04] <didrocks> well, it is, right, no regrssion for us
[14:04] <didrocks> should have been dealt earlier, but well
[14:05] <Trevinho> didrocks: yes I opened a bug to track it since I discovered: https://bugs.launchpad.net/unity/+bug/1016354
[14:05] <Trevinho> jaytaoko: we should yes
[14:05] <jaytaoko> sil2100: as I said to Trevinho before, the code looks fine. But I was hoping bschaefer could give a second opinion because I don't know the details of the issues
[14:06] <jaytaoko> sil2100: bschaefer is not awake yet I think (eastern US)
[14:06] <sil2100> jaytaoko: could you test build it and see if it doesn't break anything obvious?
[14:07] <jaytaoko> sil2100: sorry bschaefer is in western US
[14:07] <jaytaoko> sil2100: sure
[14:08] <sil2100> jaytaoko: thanks!
[14:09] <didrocks> sil2100: also, do you know about the compiz release status?
[14:09] <didrocks> as Timo is doing it
[14:11] <sil2100> didrocks: not sure, I knew he was busy yesterday, but I'll ask him in a moment
[14:11] <didrocks> sil2100: keep me in touch please :)
[14:20] <sil2100> didrocks: for bug #1016354 , should I also attach nux and the nux branch?
[14:20] <sil2100> Since essentially it's being fixed by two merges
[14:22] <sil2100> In unity and nux
[14:25] <didrocks> sil2100: yeah
[14:26] <jaytaoko> sil2100: the nux branches compile but I am getting errors in the tests
[14:30] <jaytaoko> sil2100: so as it is, we cannot merge this branch just yet: lp:~3v1n0/nux/text-entry-virtual-clipboard
[14:30] <jaytaoko> Trevinho: ^^^ are you getting errors will running "make check" for the branch?
[14:32] <Trevinho> jaytaoko: mmh, I'll try... but my tests run fine
[14:32] <sil2100> hmm
[14:33] <Trevinho> jaytaoko: what's failing there?
[14:36] <jaytaoko> Trevinho: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/1073170/  there are more test failing...
[14:36] <jaytaoko> Trevinho: I am trying nux trunk...
[14:37] <sil2100> Trevinho: we merged in some nux-3.0 changes in trunk
[14:37] <sil2100> Trevinho: are you trying it on trunk..?
[14:39] <Trevinho> jaytaoko: mhm weird... they all passed here yesterday...
[14:39]  * Trevinho checks
[14:40] <Trevinho> kamstrup: ok.. found the issue... when ibus-daemon is running some of them fails... maybe I should fix that
[14:40] <leo-unglaub> i have a problem with the current nightly of unity..
[14:41] <leo-unglaub> installed via the ppa http://ppa.launchpad.net/unity-team/staging/ubuntu
[14:41] <leo-unglaub> this is now trying to triggern an dist-upgrade
[14:41] <leo-unglaub> witch failes..
[14:42] <leo-unglaub> it always means that there is no ubuntu-desktop package found
[14:42] <leo-unglaub> but the meta package is installed
[14:42] <leo-unglaub> if i do the upgrade from the sell myself, it works fine
[14:42] <leo-unglaub> just so you know this bug..
[14:42] <leo-unglaub> if you need any  additional informations, please let me know
[14:45] <sil2100> Trevinho: how's the test issue?
[14:45] <Trevinho> sil2100: I'm fixing now... some tests fails when ibus-daemon is running
[14:46] <Trevinho> sil2100: I didn't think to that since I thought that make check was running without ibs
[14:46] <Trevinho> ibus*
[14:47] <sil2100> Trevinho: excellent! Thanks
[14:50] <sil2100> andyrock: hi!
[14:50] <sil2100> andyrock: are you around?
[14:51] <andyrock> sil2100, yeah but i'm studying
[14:51] <andyrock> do you want me to SRU something?
[14:52] <sil2100> andyrock: well, nothing urgent ;)
[14:52] <andyrock> sil2100, shoot! :)
[14:53] <sil2100> andyrock: I was wondering maybe if the fix for bug #934062 is SRUable as well ;)
[14:53] <andyrock> sil2100, yes it's SRUable
[14:53] <andyrock> have we the SRU freeze today?
[14:54] <sil2100> andyrock: no, today was supposed to be quantal freeze, but we'll do that tomorrow
[14:54] <andyrock> so i can SRU it this evening...
[14:54] <andyrock> i can ask someone to review it
[14:55] <sil2100> andyrock: the SRU freeze will be probably be around end of the week if anything
[14:55] <andyrock> cool
[14:56] <andyrock> so i think i have to SRU 2-3 branches
[14:56] <sil2100> andyrock: ooo, thanks! ;)
[14:56] <andyrock> np
[15:02] <seb128> sil2100, davidcalle: video lens new SRU uploaded, thanks
[15:03] <davidcalle> seb128, thank you
[15:04] <sil2100> seb128: thanks \o/
[15:05] <jaytaoko> Trevinho: areyou getting the test errors?
[15:06] <Trevinho> jaytaoko: only when enabling ibus-daemon
[15:06] <Trevinho> jaytaoko: however, I've fixed the first branch...
[15:06] <Trevinho> jaytaoko: fixing the second now
[15:06] <jaytaoko> Trevinho: ok
[15:07] <Trevinho> jaytaoko: this should be fine for merging, tough https://code.launchpad.net/~3v1n0/nux/text-entry-meta-filters
[15:10] <jaytaoko> Trevinho: ok. so I need to get two nux branches, right?
[15:11] <jaytaoko> Trevinho: first lp:~3v1n0/nux/text-entry-meta-filters and then lp:~3v1n0/nux/text-entry-virtual-clipboard
[15:11] <Trevinho> jaytaoko: there were two branches... with dependency
[15:11] <Trevinho> jaytaoko: yep
[15:11] <jaytaoko> Trevinho: right! so I am merging them with nux trunk before compiling
[15:15] <sil2100> didrocks: if we get this ibus fix merged into unity and nux, would you mind doing the freeze tomorrow?
[15:16] <didrocks> sil2100: sure, a pity that wasn't dealt before
[15:16] <didrocks> sil2100: or we can freeze now
[15:17] <didrocks> then, they get the release critical branches with "UNBLOCK"
[15:17] <didrocks> which can be the case of the ibus onces
[15:22] <sil2100> didrocks: that wouldn't be a problem?
[15:22] <sil2100> i.e. freezing for a whole night?
[15:24] <Trevinho> didrocks: sorry, I should have done this before... But I wanted to finish other stuff..
[15:25] <Trevinho> jaytaoko: the problem with tests when ibus is running is that... we use an async call to check if an event has been filtered... this can cause troubles, since we always return true in IBusIMEContext::FilterKeyEvent
[15:25] <jaytaoko> Trevinho: are your branch fixing a release critical issue?
[15:25] <Trevinho> jaytaoko: well, the ibus break is critical...
[15:25] <jaytaoko> Trevinho: hmm! that is why I think we should get bschaefer
[15:26] <Trevinho> jaytaoko: I agree
[15:26] <jaytaoko> sil2100: how much  trouble is it for you to postpone the release?
[15:27] <didrocks> sil2100: as you wish for the time of freezing
[15:27] <didrocks> sil2100: just hope that they won't introduce regressions if we don't freeze :)
[15:28] <sil2100> jaytaoko: well, hm, we had plans on releasing unity stack this week
[15:28] <sil2100> jaytaoko: how much more time do you need?
[15:30] <jaytaoko> sil2100: it is to leave time for bschaefer to have a look at the branches before they are merged
[15:31] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, have a look at which branches?
[15:31] <sil2100> jaytaoko: this can be done - would you ensure that Brandon looks at those today?
[15:31] <sil2100> Ah!
[15:31] <sil2100> ;)
[15:31] <sil2100> bschaefer: hi
[15:31] <bschaefer> sil2100, hello!
[15:31] <jaytaoko> bschaefer: hello
[15:31] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, hello, and good morning haha
[15:32] <jaytaoko> bschaefer: can you review these branches: https://code.launchpad.net/~3v1n0/nux/text-entry-virtual-clipboard/+merge/113145
[15:32] <bschaefer> yes
[15:32] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, let me take sometime to run some test on it
[15:33] <sil2100> bschaefer: thanks
[15:33] <bschaefer> sil2100, np!
[15:33] <sil2100> jaytaoko, bschaefer: could you guys try merging the tested fix till tomorrow?
[15:33] <sil2100> Since then we'll just do the release tomorrow
[15:33] <bschaefer> till tomorrow or by tomorrow?
[15:34] <sil2100> didrocks: would you prefer to freeze today? You have more experience here ;)
[15:34] <sil2100> bschaefer: so that it's merged in by tomorrow morning
[15:34] <sil2100> bschaefer: since we need this fixed for the release, it's currently a blocking issue
[15:34] <bschaefer> sil2100, yup, its 8:30 am here, Ill make sure it is merge by then
[15:34] <sil2100> bschaefer: \o/
[15:34] <jaytaoko> bschaefer: and run the "make check" please.
[15:35] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, will do!
[15:35] <sil2100> Damn, a nasty storm here
[15:37] <Trevinho> hi bschaefer
[15:37] <bschaefer> Trevinho, hello! So far these changes look nice :)
[15:37] <Trevinho> bschaefer: for the 2nd one (virtual clipboard) wait few seconds since I've failing tess when ibus-daemon is running
[15:37]  * bschaefer broke is pinyin
[15:37] <bschaefer> Trevinho, alright, Im installing it right now
[15:38] <didrocks> sil2100: it's really as you wish ;) if you don't care about redoing all the tests tomorrow, it's fine to only freeze tomorrow
[15:38] <Trevinho> bschaefer: they fail due to the fact that ime_>FilterKeyEvent is async (which is good), but it desn't give us the event
[15:38] <Trevinho> but I guess that adding some timeout would fix it
[15:39] <sil2100> didrocks: so hm, is it a big bother to freeze the trunk now?
[15:39] <sil2100> bschaefer, Trevinho: would you mind?
[15:39] <sil2100> I would ask for a freeze now, and unfreeze it around tomorrow
[15:39] <bschaefer> Trevinho, hmm that sounds like a good fix for that...could you do an idle to wait for it?
[15:39] <didrocks> sil2100: ask upstream :)
[15:39] <bschaefer> that might slow it down though
[15:39] <sil2100> And the ibus fix would be added as an UNBLOCK
[15:40] <bschaefer> Trevinho, hmm I just got a compiling error
[15:40] <sil2100> bschaefer: ^ ?
[15:40] <sil2100> Trevinho: ^ ? ;)
[15:41] <bschaefer> Trevinho, http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/1073278/
[15:41] <sil2100> Would you guys mind a freeze with the current state of trunk?
[15:41] <sil2100> + the ibus patch when ready?
[15:41] <bschaefer> Trevinho, you missed a comma in the printf
[15:42] <jaytaoko> Trevinho: make check fails to build
[15:42] <Trevinho> probably I've pushed a bad version :o
[15:42] <Trevinho> bschaefer: which branch?
[15:42]  * sil2100 feels ignored while there is thunder near his apartment
[15:42] <sil2100> ;)
[15:43] <bschaefer> Trevinho, https://code.launchpad.net/~3v1n0/nux/text-entry-virtual-clipboard/+merge/113145
[15:43] <bschaefer> line 245
[15:43] <Trevinho> bschaefer: wait few minutes for it
[15:43] <bschaefer> Trevinho, alright!
[15:44] <sil2100> didrocks: it seems they're busy, so we'll do the freeze tomorrow - I'll just re-test it then
[15:45] <jaytaoko> Trevinho: gtest-nux-textentry.cpp: error: ‘ime_’ was not declared in this scope
[15:45] <didrocks> sil2100: sure
[15:46] <Trevinho> jaytaoko: I don't get that here... but maybe I didn't push the fix... I'll send it soon
[15:54] <jaytaoko> bschaefer: are you able to compile the test? I am getting some errors...
[15:54] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, yeah i was able to compile all the gtest
[15:54] <sil2100> mhr3: the enable-introspection branch failed merging, some test has failed
[15:54] <sil2100> https://jenkins.qa.ubuntu.com/job/automerge-bamf/78/console
[15:54] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, hmm the only error I get is running it under sudo because ibus doesn't connect if so
[15:54] <sil2100> mhr3: for bamf
[15:55] <bschaefer> Trevinho, you should extend the time on the test also
[15:56] <bschaefer> the g-test-textentry
[15:56] <mhr3> sil2100, the log doesn't really show why
[15:56] <Trevinho> bschaefer: where? however I'm quite done...
[15:56] <bschaefer> Trevinho, 436
[15:56] <bschaefer> line, the 40000
[15:56] <mhr3> Trevinho, did you see it? i'm not sure the accessibility thing is fatal
[15:56] <bschaefer> Trevinho, done as in you have to go to sleep now?
[15:56] <mhr3> Trevinho, (talking about https://jenkins.qa.ubuntu.com/job/automerge-bamf/78/console )
[15:56] <Trevinho> mhr3: no sorry... I'm busy with another branch
[15:57] <Trevinho> mhr3: I'll check it later
[15:57] <mhr3> ok
[15:57] <mhr3> sil2100, anyway that branch is very low prio
[15:58] <sil2100> mhr3: k, we'll merge it in after the release then
[15:58] <mhr3> fine with me
[15:58] <mhr3> it'd expect we'd be frozen by now
[15:58] <sil2100> mhr3: for now maybe don't concern with it - we'll have less testing to do tomorrow if this doesn't get merged
[15:58] <sil2100> mhr3: yep
[15:59] <mhr3> sil2100, is the ibus fix really blocking you though? you could just freeze now and test everything else
[16:00] <sil2100> mhr3: well, I couldn't get an ACK from upstream, so I decided just to do the freeze tomorrow morning
[16:00] <sil2100> Trevinho, bschaefer, jaytaoko: just don't merge in too many things till tomorrow besides the ibus fix
[16:00] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, hmm let me test it again, maybe I was running the wrong rev
[16:00]  * mhr3 laughs at sil2100's last request
[16:00] <sil2100> Since we're theoretically on freeze now
[16:00] <sil2100> mhr3: :(
[16:00] <sil2100> ;)
[16:01] <mhr3> sil2100, you know you do have the power to enforce that, right?!
[16:01] <sil2100> Ouch, ok guys, the thunders are getting to intense - and it's anyway my time to go
[16:01] <jaytaoko> sil2100: nothing will be merged today except for the issue we we are working on with iBus
[16:01] <sil2100> mhr3: I know, I know.. well, didrocks has the power though, not me :D
[16:01] <sil2100> jaytaoko: thank you!
[16:01] <didrocks> I have the power \o/
[16:01] <sil2100> See you tomorrow everyone
[16:01] <bschaefer> haha
[16:01] <didrocks> see you sil2100
[16:01] <bschaefer> sil2100, have a good night
[16:01] <jaytaoko> didrocks: is nux frozen? can you activate the freeze?
[16:02] <jaytaoko> sil2100: cheers
[16:02] <didrocks> jaytaoko: hum, it seems sil2100 wanted to freeze tomorrow
[16:03] <jaytaoko> didrocks: I think we won't merge anything except for the issue we are working on. And we can use UNBLOCK. I want to avoid anyone mergeing anything before the release is done.
[16:03] <Trevinho> damn, fighting with a random crash
[16:04] <didrocks> jaytaoko: Well, I would rather freeze the whole stack or not TBH
[16:04] <mhr3> voluntary freeze, that's new :)
[16:04] <didrocks> I can of course just freeze nux if you want
[16:04] <didrocks> mhr3: btw, in the sessions about things that didn't work last cycle, didn't you notice the freeze wasn't mentionned? :)
[16:05] <mhr3> didrocks, but there were emails about it, no?
[16:05] <mhr3> i think that everyone sees that it's necesarry, but it should be done a bit differently
[16:05] <jaytaoko> didrocks: ok, so lets wait tomorrow. I will send an email to make people aware they should not merge anything in nux today and until the freeze is lifted
[16:06] <didrocks> mhr3: I'm still open and hope we can branch, commit in both and then merge back switching the mainlines
[16:06] <didrocks> mhr3: so that the tagged version is in trunk now :)
[16:06] <mhr3> yea, i thought that's how it'd work this cycle
[16:07] <bschaefer> Trevinho, what random crash?
[16:07] <didrocks> mhr3: well, I proposed that for the previous cycle already
[16:07] <didrocks> mhr3: but it seems popey and mmrazik didn't want this
[16:08] <didrocks> mhr3: like swichting the mainline
[16:08] <didrocks> so I wait for them to solve the issue and coming with a release process enabling that :)
[16:08] <mhr3> hmm, well not my call, you do have my +1 there though
[16:21] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, yeah, I can run the gtest, they just fail on the copy/paste stuff
[16:21] <bschaefer> are you still having that ime_ thing?
[16:23] <Trevinho> jaytaoko, bschaefer ok.,.. I'm done with lp:~3v1n0/nux/text-entry-virtual-clipboard
[16:23] <Trevinho> please check the review soon
[16:23] <bschaefer> Trevinho, pulling changes!
[16:24] <jaytaoko> bschaefer: I need to get the branches again... doing it now
[16:26] <Trevinho> bschaefer and jaytaoko sorry fo rthe delay... I've noticed before that I didn't send the fixed revision I tought (for the 2nd branch)...
[16:26] <bschaefer> Trevinho, jaytaoko awesome all the new test pass, Im going to run the full make check now though
[16:26] <bschaefer> Trevinho, no worries!
[16:33] <bschaefer> Trevinho, hmm did you notice the deadkey test were failing?
[16:33] <bschaefer> Trevinho, its not your branch though
[16:34] <Trevinho> bschaefer: which ones?
[16:34] <bschaefer> xtest-test-textentry-deadkeys
[16:34] <bschaefer> xtest-text-entry-deadkeys
[16:35] <Trevinho> bschaefer: they don't either run here.. :o
[16:35] <bschaefer> yeah, just wanted to make sure. Hmm, can you manually test a dead key?
[16:35] <bschaefer> Trevinho, ill manual test it, I just wanna make sure that other branch didn't stop those from working :(
[16:35] <Trevinho> bschaefer: I don't know :)
[16:36] <Trevinho> bschaefer: but I get an X error
[16:36] <bschaefer> yeah
[16:36] <bschaefer> I think its something is getting passed out of range for X
[16:36] <bschaefer> Trevinho, ooo
[16:36] <bschaefer> Trevinho, you get the error because you r keyboard doesn't have the dead key
[16:36] <bschaefer> Trevinho, because your keyboard layout doesn.t
[16:36] <Trevinho> bschaefer: ah, ok
[16:36] <bschaefer> Trevinho, forgot about that haha...
[16:37]  * bschaefer should add a check for that
[16:37] <bschaefer> Trevinho, let me test it with unity, just to be sure copy/paste still works haha
[16:38] <Trevinho> bschaefer: I need to help my gf with some home stuff..  see you later
[16:39] <bschaefer> Trevinho, no worries! Cya
[16:39] <bschaefer> Trevinho, i also have to go sign a lease soon
[16:46] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, hows the branch going for you?
[16:46] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, i think I was missing that pre req, but everything still worked w/o it
[16:46] <jaytaoko> bschaefer: ./InputMethodIBus.cpp:377:7: error: 'key_event' was not declared in this scope
[16:47] <jaytaoko> bschaefer: are you getting this error with lp:~3v1n0/nux/text-entry-virtual-clipboard
[16:48] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, hmm no, but im compiling with the pre req branch now
[16:48] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, and everything just compiled :(
[16:49] <jaytaoko> yes, I am also using the pre req branch
[16:49] <bschaefer> yeah everything just finished on my sudo make -j4
[16:49] <bschaefer> with out an error...hmm
[16:50] <jaytaoko> Trevinho: ok, I took nux trunk and I merged lp:~3v1n0/nux/text-entry-meta-filters in it. This compiles fine.
[16:51] <jaytaoko> bschaefer: Trevinho: then I merged lp:~3v1n0/nux/text-entry-virtual-clipboard and try to compile. This fails
[16:51] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, hmm I just did this: bzr branch lp:~3v1n0/nux/text-entry-meta-filters
[16:51] <jaytaoko> bschaefer: Trevinho: am I missing some libs?
[16:51] <bschaefer> then: bzr merge lp:~3v1n0/nux/text-entry-virtual-clipboard
[16:51] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, maybe something didn't get merged right?
[16:52] <jaytaoko> bschaefer: Trevinho: get merge trunk and then  merge the 2 branches into it. Then compile.
[16:52] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, will do
[16:53] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, also Trevinho is away for now
[16:54] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, Text conflict in Nux/TextEntry.cpp
[16:54] <bschaefer> Text conflict in tests/gtest-nux-textentry.cpp
[16:54] <bschaefer> 2 conflicts encountered.
[16:54] <bschaefer> I get conflicts when I merge
[16:54] <bschaefer> the virtual-clipboard
[16:55] <jaytaoko> bschaefer: hmm I don't get the conflicts
[16:55] <bschaefer> I just did this
[16:55] <bschaefer> bzr branch lp:nux
[16:55] <bschaefer> cd nux
[16:55] <bschaefer> bzr merge lp:~...meta
[16:55] <bschaefer> bzr merge lp:~clipboard
[16:55] <bschaefer> then conflicts on the second one
[16:56] <jaytaoko> bschaefer: starting from scratch again
[16:56] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, i have to go for like 30-40 min
[16:56] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, i have to sign a lease to an apartment, so i can live somewhere haha
[16:56] <jaytaoko> bschaefer: no problem! talk to you later
[16:56] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, yup! Good luck!
[16:56] <jaytaoko> bschaefer: thanks :)
[17:11] <Trevinho> bschaefer: back
[17:12] <Trevinho> jaytaoko: any problem?
[17:23] <Trevinho> jaytaoko: just re-checked... all merges and compiles fine here
[17:23] <jaytaoko> Trevinho: I took nux trunk them merged the 2 branches. It fails at the build.
[17:24] <Trevinho> jaytaoko: maybe you did it too early (I pushed the updates ~1h ago)?
[17:24] <jaytaoko> Trevinho: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/1073429/
[17:25] <jaytaoko> Trevinho: I took the branches 15 minutes ago
[17:25] <Trevinho> jaytaoko: right... and why my branch compiles!?? :o
[17:25] <Trevinho> jaytaoko: however I'm fixing it now
[17:26] <Trevinho> jaytaoko: ok, fixed
[17:26] <jaytaoko> Trevinho: ok, getting...
[17:32] <jaytaoko> Trevinho: ok, now it compiles
[17:32] <jaytaoko> Trevinho: I am getting some failures in the tests
[17:33] <Trevinho> jaytaoko: which ones?
[17:33] <jaytaoko> Trevinho: they are related to iBus.
[17:33] <jaytaoko> ViewSendKeyComboNux: TextEntry is only Preedit: Failed
[17:33] <jaytaoko> Nux: TextEntry is "请问儿童有": Failed
[17:33] <jaytaoko> Trevinho: ^
[17:33] <Trevinho> jaytaoko: I have the same issue...
[17:33] <Trevinho> jaytaoko: brandon told me that it was correct btw
[17:33] <jaytaoko> Trevinho: I think bschaefer can help
[17:34] <Trevinho> jaytaoko: the problem there is that I I write qwerty on the terminal with ibus, I get the same string that nux gets...
[17:34] <Trevinho> jaytaoko: was you getting that even in trunk?
[17:35] <jaytaoko> Trevinho: I have restarted iBus. The test works now
[17:36] <Trevinho> jaytaoko: I don't think that this is caused by my branch... It seems like something that can fail randomly...
[17:38] <jaytaoko> Trevinho: ok, so bschaefer will be back in an hour or so, I will get him to review your branch. If all is fine, then we can merge
[17:38] <jaytaoko> Trevinho: do you have a unity branch for this as well?
[17:38] <Trevinho> jaytaoko: ok cool... sorry for the errors... :/
[17:38] <Trevinho> jaytaoko: yep
[17:38] <Trevinho> jaytaoko: https://code.launchpad.net/~3v1n0/unity/im-textentry-rewrite-ibus-fix
[17:39] <Trevinho> jaytaoko: plus these AP tests https://code.launchpad.net/~3v1n0/unity/ibus-press-release-tests
[17:39] <jaytaoko> Trevinho: no problem. I will try the unity branch as well. Is there an automated test for the unity branch or do I need to test manually?
[17:40] <Trevinho> jaytaoko: there are both unit tests (./test-gtest --gtest_filter=TestIM*)
[17:40] <Trevinho> jaytaoko: and ap tests (in the branch above)
[18:01] <bschaefer> back!
[18:01] <Trevinho> bschaefer: so.. give the branches a new try :)
[18:01] <bschaefer> Trevinho, jaytaoko hello, sorry had to sign a lease haha
[18:01] <bschaefer> Trevinho, I did!
[18:01] <bschaefer> I think, or are there new changed?
[18:02] <Trevinho> bschaefer: cool... ;)
[18:02] <Trevinho> bschaefer: i fixed some compilation troubles and tests when ibus is running
[18:02] <bschaefer> Trevinho, awesome, let me pull those changes
[18:03] <bschaefer> was just reading above. So why that test fails is your pinyin has a preference
[18:03] <bschaefer> it is learning what you type haha, so it will change sometimes, a fix would be to change it to ninhao
[18:03] <bschaefer> "ninhao" because that is a real word haha
[18:08] <jaytaoko> bschaefer: welcome back.
[18:08] <jaytaoko> bschaefer: so, I was able to compile after Trevinho did a fix
[18:08] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, thank you! Sorry, I just had to get that taken care of.
[18:09] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, awesome!
[18:10] <jaytaoko> bschaefer: the iBus tests sometimes fails...
[18:10] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, hmm when you do "qwerty"?
[18:10] <jaytaoko> bschaefer: it seems that are some conditions that can cause them to fail, but it does not happen all the time
[18:10] <jaytaoko> bschaefer: yes
[18:10] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, yeah  because this is what I get when I type it
[18:10] <bschaefer> 请问儿童有
[18:11] <bschaefer> sooo a think a good fix would be to change it from "qwerty" to "ninhao"
[18:11] <bschaefer> since one is an actual word
[18:11] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, what happens is other tests that are going on that use pinyin cache the characters your select
[18:13] <bschaefer> Trevinho, ^
[18:13] <bschaefer> if you wouldn't mind changing it in your branch
[18:13] <jaytaoko> bschaefer: ok, is this something that can be done today? or should we wait?
[18:13] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, all we should have to do is change the test just a little
[18:13] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, should be a very easy fix!
[18:14] <Trevinho> bschaefer: sorry? Should I change to ninhao?
[18:14] <bschaefer> Trevinho, change "qwerty" to "ninhao"
[18:14] <bschaefer> then change "请问儿童有“ to "您好“
[18:15] <bschaefer> that should fix that case
[18:19] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, other then that everything is looking good in your branch?
[18:19] <jaytaoko> bschaefer: yes
[18:20] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, awesome, i have no clue why mine would compile...
[18:20] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, but mine was also looking good
[18:20]  * bschaefer is running the tests again
[18:29] <Trevinho> bschaefer: I've pushed it, now it works....
[18:29] <Trevinho> bschaefer: so... once your tests pass, let's unblock and approve all the branches ;)
[18:31] <bschaefer> Trevinho, awesome! Thanks
[18:31] <bschaefer> ill run it again just to be sure :)
[18:37] <bschaefer> Trevinho, approved both branch :)
[18:37] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, new tests were just pushed
[18:37] <Trevinho> cool, thanks
[18:37] <bschaefer> or a new one was
[18:38] <bschaefer> to fix the one that was failing for you
[18:38] <bschaefer> np!
[18:38] <Trevinho> bschaefer: have you checked the unity ones as well? :)
[18:39] <bschaefer> Trevinho, hmm well it compiled with unity but yeah I need to run those test!!
[18:42] <bschaefer> Trevinho, whooo
[18:42] <bschaefer> Trevinho, I got a crash
[18:43] <bschaefer> Trevinho, when I try and type into the dash...
[18:43] <Trevinho> bschaefer: hm...
[18:43] <Trevinho> bschaefer: stacktrace?
[18:43]  * bschaefer gets bt
[18:43] <bschaefer> yeah one sec
[18:43] <jaytaoko> bschaefer: Trevinho: can you check that we can merge https://code.launchpad.net/~3v1n0/unity/im-textentry-rewrite-ibus-fix into unity trunk and it will compile. I tried but it failed...
[18:44]  * Trevinho checks
[18:45] <jaytaoko|lunch> bschaefer: Trevinho: it also looks like unity trunk fails to build? I wonder if it is my system
[18:46] <bschaefer> Trevinho, http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/1073557/
[18:46] <bschaefer> jaytaoko|lunch, hmm I just compiled mine, but then running it causes a crash
[18:47] <Trevinho> bschaefer: it seems like you don't have an updated unity there..
[18:47] <Trevinho> or am I wrong
[18:47] <Trevinho> ?
[18:48] <Trevinho> bschaefer: we don't have anymore unity::IMTextEntry::InspectKeyEvent but yours run it...
[18:48] <bschaefer> Trevinho, yeah let me double check that...
[18:48] <bschaefer> Trevinho, oo run your new unity bracnh duhh
[18:49] <mhr3> still no more jhbuild converts?
[18:49] <mhr3> you people like building everything yourself, don't you :)
[18:49] <Trevinho> eheh :(
[18:49] <bschaefer> idk what jhbuild is!
[18:49] <Trevinho> (wrong bracket))
[18:50] <mhr3> bschaefer, let's call it magic that can build the whole unity stack
[18:50] <mhr3> and run it without installing it system-wide
[18:50] <bschaefer> mhr3, well I don't believe in magic! Its scary
[18:50] <bschaefer> well I have bash scripts that build branchs...so I don't have to type much haha
[18:51] <mhr3> try to build the *whole* stack sir :P
[18:51] <bschaefer> I will manually!
[18:51] <bschaefer> mhr3, haha, but Ill look into it
[18:51] <bschaefer> that sounds nice
[18:52] <mhr3> lp:unity-jhbuild ;) it has a readme
[18:52] <bschaefer> no way! is it up to date?
[18:52] <mhr3> bschaefer, good question :)
[18:52] <bschaefer> haha
[18:54] <mhr3> fwiw it's a gnome tool, so some docs can be found there as well
[18:54] <bschaefer> cool, I should be able to get it working...
[18:55] <bschaefer> wait so this freeze on unity, is it for the 5.0 branch?
[18:55] <bschaefer> or 6.0 as well
[18:58] <bschaefer> Trevinho, hmm Im still getting a crash with your branch ... but now the bt wont give me anything ...
[19:00] <Trevinho> bschaefer: weird... need to have dinner now... see you later
[19:00] <bschaefer> Trevinho, yeah...hmm Ill see what I can figure out in the meantime
[19:34] <bschaefer> Trevinho, sweet, something got messed up but now it doesn't crash! yay
[19:34]  * bschaefer is running ap test now
[19:40] <jaytaoko> bschaefer: Trevinho: how is it going?
[19:44] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, hey, going well
[19:45] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, i just got that branch up and working and all test seem to pass
[19:45] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, hmm actually I need to test these dead keys
[19:45] <bschaefer> they seem to be failing for me :(
[19:48] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, hows the branch going for you?
[19:49] <jaytaoko> bschaefer: something is wrong on my system... I need to update before I can compile the unity branch
[19:50] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, that sucks :(
[19:50] <bschaefer> im worried compose/dead keys might be broken...now I have remember how to do those hahah
[19:51] <jaytaoko> bschaefer: yeah, I forgot about it as well
[19:51] <jaytaoko> bschaefer: need to reboot
[19:51] <bschaefer> ok
[19:55] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, it looks like multi key/dead keys is having problems
[19:55] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, its just bugging now
[19:55] <bschaefer> buggy*
[19:58] <jaytaoko> bschaefer: hmm we will have to fix :-(
[19:58] <bschaefer> Trevinho,  :( soo your branch is breaking multi key/ dead keys... Ill dig into it until you get back!
[19:58] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, o yeah, Im thinking it has to do with the KEY_UP event
[19:59] <bschaefer> jaytaoko, and im hopping we can just ignore those keys when checking for dead keys
[19:59] <jaytaoko> bschaefer: ok
[20:03] <Trevinho> bschaefer: bacl
[20:03] <Trevinho> back*
[20:04] <bschaefer> Trevinho, hey, sooo dead keys and compose mode isn't working anymore
[20:04] <bschaefer> Trevinho, i think I know why and have fixed it from the manual test
[20:04] <Trevinho> bschaefer: compose was working here...
[20:04] <bschaefer> for a manual test...but the test still fail half the time...but I just started looking at it
[20:05] <bschaefer> Trevinho, it was working buggy ish though,
[20:05] <bschaefer> Trevinho, if you setxkmap fr
[20:05] <bschaefer> then hit square bracket then delete
[20:05] <bschaefer> it deletes that space, which isn't correct
[20:06] <bschaefer> Trevinho, http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/1073690/
[20:06] <bschaefer> that seems to fix a lot of the problems
[20:08] <bschaefer> but there is still a problem...hmm
[20:28] <Trevinho> bschaefer: how dead keys are actually working?
[20:28] <bschaefer> Trevinho, well the deadkeys might be working, im just testing compose keys right now
[20:28] <bschaefer> Trevinho, and it isn't working well in the dash...
[20:29] <bschaefer> to test compose keys:
[20:29] <bschaefer> setxkbmap fr
[20:29] <bschaefer> then press: '[' + 'o'
[20:29] <bschaefer> that should give you ô
[20:30] <Trevinho> what's happening instead?
[20:31] <Trevinho> setting it to italian, if I do ^+o I get that..
[20:32] <bschaefer> Trevinho, it works like half the time and in the dash...or doesn't work at all
[20:32] <bschaefer> Trevinho, that pastebin I sent you fixes it in nux, but now im having problems getting unity to read my updated nux
[20:32] <Trevinho> mh ok
[20:33] <bschaefer> Trevinho, also once you have your multi key set try the test for them
[20:33] <bschaefer> umm
[20:33] <bschaefer> ./xtest-text-entry-deadkeys
[20:33] <bschaefer> (it tests compose keys rather then dead keys...I didn't know the difference back then haha)
[20:35] <bschaefer> Trevinho, how do you set it to italian?
[20:36] <Trevinho> bschaefer: I've just enabled the compose key from g-c-c
[20:37] <bschaefer> Trevinho, hmm
[20:37] <bschaefer> Trevinho, whats the multi key for italian?
[20:37] <bschaefer> I wanna test that out
[20:37] <Trevinho> bschaefer: from g-c-c you can set to any key... I set to caps lock
[20:37] <bschaefer> Trevinho, ok, let me try that out
[20:44] <bschaefer> Trevinho, it doesn't work for me :(
[20:45] <bschaefer> Trevinho, did you get the deadkey test for nux working?
[20:48] <Trevinho> bschaefer: sorry, I was checking AP... now I do that
[20:48] <bschaefer> Trevinho, no worries!
[20:48] <bschaefer> Trevinho, i just want to make sure not to piss off didrocks haha
[20:48] <Trevinho> thomi: I've this one too https://code.launchpad.net/~3v1n0/unity/ibus-press-release-tests/+merge/113147 ;)
[20:49] <Trevinho> bschaefer: we must be sure not to break anything... we're playing with the fire! :)
[20:49] <Trevinho> bschaefer: should I test that with your fix or not?
[20:49] <bschaefer> Trevinho, i know! Its hard, cause I don't speak or use any of those language settings so I have to re learn it agian haha
[20:49] <bschaefer> Trevinho, first test with what you have
[20:49] <bschaefer> Trevinho, with your italian set up
[20:50] <bschaefer> Trevinho, if it fails then test my fix
[20:50] <bschaefer> Fire is fun to play with though
[20:50] <thomi> Trevinho: I'm not so sure about that test.
[20:51] <thomi> why do you hold the activate keys down?
[20:51] <Trevinho> thomi: because I need to check if the activation happens on key release or on key press
[20:52] <thomi> hmm....
[20:52]  * thomi investigates further
[20:52] <Trevinho> so bschaefer yes.. it fails (but yesterday when I tried it was working! :/)
[20:52]  * Trevinho checks the bschaefer patch
[20:52] <bschaefer> Trevinho, hmm
[20:52] <bschaefer> Trevinho, its not a patch haha, its just surrounds the dead keys/compose to avoid the key up
[20:54] <thomi> Trevinho: THe set_gconf_option in setUp is to make sure that the activation key is Ctrl+Space?
[20:54] <thomi> ...because that's the default, right?
[20:55] <Trevinho> thomi: yes...
[20:55] <Trevinho> thomi: in that way we're independent from configurations... we set our values, so no one should break it
[20:55] <thomi> Trevinho: sure
[20:57] <thomi> hmm, this isn't an issue with your code, but autopilot should take care of adding the cleanup inside set_gconf_option
[20:57] <thomi> like set_compiz_option does
[20:57] <Trevinho> bschaefer: I've added your patch... now it works... but I've some failures anyway...
[20:57] <Trevinho> bschaefer: I don't know if it depends on the keyboard layout
[20:57] <bschaefer> Trevinho, yeah, it seems to fix it a bit
[20:57] <Trevinho> I've kept the italian
[20:57] <bschaefer> Trevinho, no it shouldn't
[20:57] <bschaefer> Trevinho, it sends the multi key to x11, but it needs to exist on the layouy
[20:58] <bschaefer> Trevinho, i was still getting failures, but when I tried to test it on unity it didn't use my updated nux
[20:58] <bschaefer> which is what im working on now to much sure it works in unity...(you can also test it under ~/nux/examples/test-foucs...
[20:58] <bschaefer> something like that
[20:59] <thomi> Trevinho: the issue I have is that you've changed the way activate_ibus works, which is used by the existing tests.
[21:00] <Trevinho> thomi: well, yes.. but it just does what it did before, it just checks more than before
[21:00] <thomi> it used to press_and_release the activation keycombo & then wait for the ime_active signal. Now it presses the activation keycombo, waits for the signal and then releases the key combo
[21:01] <thomi> Trevinho: the only different is where the assert goes. I don't think we should be checking for the activation signal half way through a keypress
[21:01] <thomi> ...especially since this changes all the existing ibus tests.
[21:02] <Trevinho> thomi: well... yes, but if the activation happens after the release, that's wrong
[21:02] <thomi> hmmmm
[21:02] <thomi> ok
[21:02] <thomi> another issue is that if the activation is successful you'll generate a release when you shouldn't
[21:02] <thomi> since the addCleanup will proc in both cases
[21:02] <thomi> I wonder if there's a way around that?
[21:03] <Trevinho> thomi: yes... I thought about that...
[21:03] <Trevinho> thomi: isn't releasing a released key a non-issue?
[21:03]  * thomi checks
[21:04] <thomi> Trevinho: it'll still generate a key rwelease event, which may confuse things
[21:06] <thomi> Trevinho: also, can you update the docstrings on activate_ibus_on_release and deactivate_ibus_on_release.I'm not sure what they're supposed to do
[21:07] <Trevinho> ok
[21:08] <bschaefer>  Trevinho ok, I think my fix fixes it for unity, but ill have to take a look at why half the test fail
[21:09] <bschaefer> Trevinho, in nux, but doing manual test, it seems to like it...
[21:10] <Trevinho> bschaefer: mhmh... weird
[21:10] <Trevinho> I don't think I've changed anything that should break that... I mean, I've just added two safety check for null character...
[21:10] <bschaefer> Trevinho, yeah, but I wrote those test a while ago...
[21:11] <bschaefer> Trevinho, remember the deadkeys test didn't work because of the X11 error
[21:11] <bschaefer> Trevinho, since they keyboard layout you had didn't have a compose key
[21:11] <Trevinho> bschaefer: I have enabled the compose key
[21:11] <bschaefer> Trevinho, sending the KEY_UP keys through the dead key checks messed up its look ahead stuff
[21:11] <bschaefer> Trevinho, hmm
[21:12] <bschaefer> Trevinho, did you yesterday to test it?
[21:12] <Trevinho> bschaefer: I'm gettiing this btw http://paste.ubuntu.com/1073821/
[21:12] <bschaefer> Trevinho, yeah it seems like the very first key stroke messes up sometimes...
[21:12] <Trevinho> bschaefer: do you have the same?
[21:13] <bschaefer> Trevinho, yeah!
[21:13] <bschaefer> its not 100% fixed, but at lease we reduced it from 100% failure to some what working
[21:13] <leo-unglaub> hey guys...
[21:14] <leo-unglaub> i need help
[21:14] <leo-unglaub> the latest unity update killt my laptop
[21:14] <thumper> killed in what way?
[21:14] <leo-unglaub> it removed my ubuntu-desktop package and endet with a dependency error
[21:15] <Trevinho> bschaefer: it doesn't seem to work in my dash/hud at all tough
[21:15] <leo-unglaub> i get the folowing error
[21:15] <bschaefer> Trevinho, are you sure it is using the new nux? Cause I had a problem where unity wasnt using the new version...
[21:16] <Trevinho> yep
[21:16] <bschaefer> but ive got mine working :(
[21:16] <bschaefer> hmm
[21:16] <leo-unglaub> can't install unity, it depends on unity-common = 5.12+bzr2444ubuntu0+709 but 5.12+bzr2445ubuntu0+709 should be installed
[21:16] <bschaefer> Trevinho, does it work for you under the nux example
[21:17] <bschaefer> text entry focus thing
[21:19] <leo-unglaub> how can i fix this?
[21:22] <Trevinho> leo-unglaub: try to manually install unity and unity-common= 5.1x (check the last official version via apt-cache policy unity)
[21:23] <leo-unglaub> Trevinho: installing manually doesn't work...
[21:23] <leo-unglaub> would i help to remove the ppa?
[21:24] <Trevinho> leo-unglaub: neither if you specify the version via apt-get install unity=version?
[21:26]  * bschaefer -> coffee
[21:27] <leo-unglaub> Trevinho: hmm, doesn't work...
[21:27] <Trevinho> bschaefer: you know what? deadkeys is failing even in trunk...
[21:28] <bschaefer> Trevinho, really?
[21:28] <bschaefer> Trevinho, shit....
[21:28] <Trevinho> bschaefer: it looks like that
[21:28] <Trevinho> can you try as well?
[21:29] <bschaefer> Trevinho, yeah, let me get trunk and build it
[21:37] <leo-unglaub> sorry, i have a bad inet conenction here. all 5 minutes a damn disconnect
[21:38] <leo-unglaub> if i try to install unity again i get
[21:38] <leo-unglaub> unity : Hängt ab von: libunity-core-5.0-5 (= 5.12-0ubuntu1.1) soll aber nicht installiert w
[21:38] <leo-unglaub> in english, this means: depends on libunity-core-5.0-5 (= 5.12-0ubuntu1.1) , but this should not be installed
[21:39] <leo-unglaub> my current dpkg status for unity*
[21:39] <leo-unglaub> http://pastebin.com/m7t5JBSi
[21:42] <bschaefer> Trevinho, hmm it works for me...but I need to revert my nux
[21:49] <leo-unglaub> damn internet conenction here...do you need more informations for my problem?