| RAOF | Oh, my. | 01:34 |
|---|---|---|
| RAOF | “make test ARGS=-j9” | 01:34 |
| === duflu_ is now known as duflu | ||
| duflu | Why is freenode timing out so much this week? | 01:51 |
| RAOF | Is your internet being terrible again? :) | 01:52 |
| duflu | Apparently I'm still connected at full speed. It's only IRC that's weird | 01:55 |
| === chihchun_afk is now known as chihchun | ||
| === chihchun is now known as chihchun_afk | ||
| robotfuel | duflu: ping | 04:38 |
| duflu | robotfuel: pong | 04:43 |
| robotfuel | duflu: I thought I needed the project(<name>) in the cmake file to name and publish an executable, will everything work the same without it? | 04:46 |
| duflu | robotfuel: Yeah should work without it, from memory | 04:50 |
| robotfuel | duflu: I was just following this http://www.cmake.org/cmake/help/cmake_tutorial.html when I modified the cmake file for this MP https://code.launchpad.net/~chris.gagnon/mir/development-branch-no-valgrind-on-arm-unit-tests/+merge/196406 | 04:50 |
| duflu | robotfuel: Because it already falls under the mir project | 04:51 |
| robotfuel | ah ok, I'll remove it then. | 04:51 |
| === chihchun_afk is now known as chihchun | ||
| === chihchun is now known as chihchun_afk | ||
| === chihchun_afk is now known as chihchun | ||
| RAOF | Alright. That's me for the day. See you all in London. | 07:01 |
| duflu | RAOF: Happy travels | 07:04 |
| tvoss | RAOF, see you in London :) | 07:55 |
| === chihchun is now known as chihchun_afk | ||
| === chihchun_afk is now known as chihchun | ||
| alf_ | tvoss_: can you remind me why we have the test discovery logic in mir, instead of adding the test directly? | 11:06 |
| tvoss_ | alf_, iirc, people wanted one executable per test class (unit/integration/acceptance) but more fine-grained output in the output of "make test" | 11:07 |
| alf_ | tvoss_: ok, and I guess the usual gtest output (which is fine grained) is supressed when running with make test / ctest | 11:08 |
| tvoss_ | alf_, exactly | 11:09 |
| alf_ | tvoss_: thanks, I am trying to streamline our testing infrastructure and remove hardcoded assumptions (e.g. ANDROID==armhf==cross-compilation) | 11:12 |
| tvoss_ | alf_, yup :) I'm not opposed to getting rid of the test discovery in general | 11:14 |
| alf_ | tvoss_: ... and also remove hardcoded CI specific logic from our build system, instead exposing it as options. As a first step I am trying to figure out what the requirements are from all sides. | 11:15 |
| alf_ | tvoss_: anyway, to be continued after lunch :) | 11:16 |
| tvoss_ | alf_, yup :) | 11:16 |
| alan_g | alf_: IIRC it was a workaround for a lack of any test output from CI. But we now see output from failed tests, so I think it unnecessary. | 11:30 |
| === alan_g is now known as alan_g|afk | ||
| === alan_g|afk is now known as alan_g | ||
| === dandrader is now known as dandrader|afk | ||
| === alan_g is now known as alan_g|lunch | ||
| === dandrader|afk is now known as dandrader | ||
| === alan_g|lunch is now known as alan_g | ||
| alan_g | alf_: got a moment to talk design? | 14:23 |
| alf_ | alan_g: sure, hangout or IRC? | 14:24 |
| alan_g | shall we start here? | 14:24 |
| alf_ | alan_g: sounds good | 14:24 |
| alan_g | This is about buffer handles | 14:24 |
| alan_g | I've been working through the consequences of a single owner handle passed out by BufferBundle | 14:25 |
| alan_g | And come across the fact that these would be needed for the in-process clients | 14:25 |
| alan_g | Which means that the handles would need to be in shared - to be available for platformgraphics | 14:26 |
| alan_g | And I think putting part of (what is logically) compositor there seems distinctly odd | 14:26 |
| alan_g | thoughts? | 14:27 |
| alf_ | alan_g: I don't understand why they need to be in 'shared'. Did you mean libmirplatform? | 14:27 |
| alan_g | I did | 14:28 |
| alan_g | I meant mirplatformgraphics | 14:28 |
| alan_g | The "gbm" or "android" libraries | 14:29 |
| alf_ | alan_g: ok, let me process this for a moment (and check the code) | 14:30 |
| alan_g | alf_: e.g. include/platform/mir/graphics/internal_surface.h | 14:31 |
| alan_g | alf_: the alternative design is to use a raw pointer - and at this point it seems like a more elegant approach. | 14:37 |
| alf_ | alan_g: ok, so the problem is solved this way by InternalSurface not needing the implementation of the buffer handle, and just calling swap/release on the underlying surface | 14:42 |
| alf_ | alan_g: and unique_ptr is cumbersome because of the need for an explicit deleter signature... | 14:43 |
| alan_g | alf_: well I was writing my own handle type, but there's still a need for type information | 14:47 |
| alf_ | alan_g: right, I meant that if we wanted to use unique_ptr instead it would be cumbersome. What I think would work is a shared header only implementation of a generic unique pointer handle that is more like a shared_ptr in terms of deleter encapsulation. | 14:53 |
| alan_g | Possible. But brutal | 14:55 |
| alf_ | alan_g: I am not necessarily saying that this would be preferable to the raw pointer (and swap/release) approach :) | 14:56 |
| alan_g | ack. ;) | 14:56 |
| alan_g | We don't actually need release() for the current functionality | 14:57 |
| alan_g | Just because of the way some tests are designed | 14:57 |
| alan_g | (We don't leak resources or anything) | 14:58 |
| alf_ | alan_g: What about the buffer bundle returning a normal unique_ptr to an mg::Buffer that knows how to destroy itself? | 15:00 |
| alf_ | alan_g: (i.e. a decorated mg::Buffer) | 15:00 |
| alan_g | As in with the default destructor. Yes, it could be done but like the current design we're creating an unnecessary object every time we pass out a buffer | 15:02 |
| alan_g | The thing is we're not really passing out ownership - so smart pointers are at best misleading | 15:05 |
| === dandrader is now known as dandrader|lunch | ||
| alf_ | alan_g: OK then. I think we can start with the raw pointer approach, and if we see that it leads to issues we can reconsider. My original concern was related to your last statement; when using smart pointers there is an expectation that they knows how to clean themselves up, not so with raw pointers. | 15:12 |
| alan_g | alf_: agreed a raw pointer says "this one", not "you own this" | 15:13 |
| alan_g | alf_: thanks | 15:16 |
| alf_ | alan_g: You are welcome. Going off on a tangent, I would like, in general, to have a smart ptr ala shared_ptr with unique semantics in the C++ arsenal :) | 15:20 |
| alan_g | alf_: If you want it in the standard library you'll probably have to write a proposal for WG21 | 15:22 |
| alan_g | (It isn't hard to implement, but standardising it...) | 15:23 |
| === alan_g is now known as alan_g|tea | ||
| ricmm | greyback: ping | 15:30 |
| greyback | ricmm: pong | 15:30 |
| ricmm | greyback: I just replied to the screenshotting thread | 15:31 |
| ricmm | I believe the scope is too broad for what the actual requirement is, which is to get QA back to where they were before | 15:31 |
| greyback | ricmm: you're not wrong | 15:32 |
| tvoss_ | ricmm, the one thing we should avoid is investing too much work into the screenshotting solution | 15:37 |
| ricmm | I said 30 minutes | 15:38 |
| ricmm | with 30 minuts you can have a dbus interface that screenshots something and saves to /tmp/unity8/screenshots//formatted-name.png or whatever | 15:38 |
| ricmm | greyback: +1/-1 ? I'll do the MR and just ping thomi to see if hes happy with it | 15:39 |
| ricmm | thats already days of discussions without unblocking them | 15:39 |
| ricmm | which was the real req | 15:39 |
| ricmm | tvoss_: ^ | 15:39 |
| greyback | ricmm: I'm +1. | 15:39 |
| ricmm | ok | 15:39 |
| * ricmm branches | 15:39 | |
| tvoss_ | ricmm, see Saviq's answer | 15:43 |
| Saviq | ricmm, they can't do nothing with screenshots, it's screencasting that they need | 15:44 |
| === alan_g|tea is now known as alan_g | ||
| tvoss_ | Saviq, did they have screencasting with surfaceflinger? | 15:44 |
| Saviq | tvoss_, no | 15:44 |
| ricmm | so it has nothing to do with going back to where we were before | 15:45 |
| ricmm | nvm then | 15:45 |
| tvoss_ | Saviq, ricmm +1, it seems to be a mid-term requirement then | 15:45 |
| popey | Saviq: tvoss_ when you guys are considering screenshot / screencast, can you also please consider remote desktop? ☻ | 15:58 |
| tvoss_ | popey, one step after the other :) | 15:59 |
| popey | indeed | 15:59 |
| popey | they're all related though | 15:59 |
| Saviq | popey, I think nothing we've talked about until now precludes | 15:59 |
| tvoss_ | popey, agreed | 15:59 |
| Saviq | popey, https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/mir-devel/2013-November/000511.html | 15:59 |
| === chihchun is now known as chihchun_afk | ||
| truebattleaxe | GOOOOOOOOOOOOD morning | 16:22 |
| alan_g | kdub: over on #ubuntu-ci-eng Saviq is volunteering to test your GNexus fix | 16:39 |
| Saviq | alan_g, kdub yeah, gonna take some build time, but I will | 16:39 |
| ogra_ | just a little hint for the future ... ask the bug submitter to test it ;) | 16:40 |
| kdub | Saviq, thanks | 16:44 |
| kdub | what i was seeing yesterday on the stock image was it was working intermittently | 16:44 |
| === thomi_ is now known as thomi | ||
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!