[00:00] <bluesabre>  yes, agreed
[00:01] <ochosi> (the only thing we might have to keep in mind is to autoremove lls on the next LTS->LTS upgrade)
[00:02] <bluesabre> yeah, no big deal there
[00:02] <ochosi> if you wanna hack at xfpm-settings, i
[00:02] <ochosi> 'd be up for another 30mins
[00:03] <bluesabre> we're running out to the store now
[00:03] <ochosi> oh right
[00:03] <ochosi> bad timing
[00:03] <bluesabre> I'll get started on it though when I get back
[00:03] <bluesabre> put it in a branch so you can hack on it too :D
[00:04] <ochosi> hm, just a quick question before you run out
[00:04] <bluesabre> k
[00:04] <ochosi> cause i could add the tab to the glade file up front for you
[00:04] <ochosi> but then again, how would you wanna make it conditional?
[00:04] <ochosi> bake it in via a separate builder file?
[00:04] <ochosi> or just show/hide the tab in the code?
[00:04] <bluesabre> we can selectively hide/show the tab
[00:06] <ochosi> right, then i can quickly hack at the ui file and post a diff
[00:06] <ochosi> then you have something to start with
[00:06] <bluesabre> great, that would help a lot
[00:06] <ochosi> i'll leave the gsettings-binds to you
[00:06] <bluesabre> :)
[00:07] <ochosi> note: this'll be based on xfpm-master
[00:07] <bluesabre> bbabl
[00:07] <bluesabre> ok, thats cool with me
[00:07] <ochosi> good, ttyl
[00:07] <ochosi> (or actually, !ttyl :))
[00:57] <ochosi> bluesabre: took a tiny bit longer than 30mins because i re-arranged everything from boxes to a table (cleaner code): http://i.imgur.com/VubvTHB.png
[00:57] <ochosi> this just mirrors the light-locker settings UI now
[00:58] <ochosi> obviously the security-frame in the system-tab has to be hidden when that tab is shown
[00:58] <ochosi> (for the duplicate lock-on-suspend option)
[00:58] <ochosi> and you have to create the callbacks and hook them up to gsettings
[00:58] <ochosi> and finally you have to fill the combobox for the auto-lock-modes
[00:58] <ochosi> but that's it
[00:59] <ochosi> (ok, i forgot: the late-locking option needs its own format in order to display seconds instead of minutes)
[01:05] <ochosi> excuse the ridiculously long widget-names, but (1) consistency and (2) avoiding potential conflict with other widgets that might get added to xfpm-settings was the idea behind it
[01:05] <ochosi> http://dpaste.com/301PJNA
[01:05] <ochosi> there ya go ^
[01:05] <ochosi> and i'm out
[01:06] <ochosi> nighty all
[01:42] <ochosi> Unit193: just so you know, i assigned a mini-workitem to you, since you're now part of -dev ;)
[01:43] <ochosi> Noskcaj: btw, i tested bluez5 and found no issues so far. is there anything you're expecting to happen/break?
[01:59] <Noskcaj> ochosi, as long as blueman isn't breaking, we're all good
[02:03] <Noskcaj> I have nothing to do with bluez5 now, just hoping it will be done soon
[02:24] <Unit193> ochosi: Right, though shouldn't do it yet, since xfpm still doesn't have it. :P
[09:09] <brainwash> ochosi: you've marked the parole bug as invalid despite "Also, it does not matter whether the option to prevent the screen saver is on or off in parole preferences."
[09:09] <brainwash> is this problem not a bug in the parole code?
[10:07] <ochosi> brainwash: hm right, yeah, there seems to be a different problem, forgot about that one
[10:07] <brainwash> ochosi: I was about to mark the ubuntu report as invalid also, but I noticed this little detail then
[10:09] <brainwash> It's possible that fixing xdg-screensaver will make changes to the parole code unnecessary though
[10:11] <ochosi> nah, there is something fishy there
[10:11] <ochosi> not sure, we'll have to look at it
[10:11] <ochosi> seems like it always prevents the screensaver, independently of the setting
[10:11] <ochosi> plus it resets it to default when the setting is off
[10:11] <ochosi> so there's definitely a problem here
[10:16] <brainwash> I'll take a closer look later, it shouldn't be that hard to fix
[10:16] <ochosi> okeydokey, bbl
[11:02] <bluesabre> ochosi: I started work on xfpm and light-locker packaging last night, will probably get it done today... nothing to commit or upload yet
[11:02] <bluesabre> I think we used hoards of boxes because its difficult to nicely position elements otherwise, but we should be able to get by
[11:08] <bluesabre> usually a bit more limited with gtk2
[11:10] <ochosi> hey bluesabre 
[11:10] <bluesabre> hey ochosi
[11:10] <ochosi> well actually i was using more tables, but hjudt redid it all with boxes because of the potentially long translations and stuff
[11:10] <ochosi> anyway, for the light-locker tab it's fine to use a table
[11:10] <bluesabre> ah, gotcha
[11:11] <ochosi> xfpm packaging? you mean 1.4.2?
[11:11] <bluesabre> no, light-locker packaging
[11:11] <bluesabre> for 1.5.1
[11:11] <ochosi> ah ok
[11:11] <bluesabre> :)
[11:11] <ochosi> ah got it now :)
[11:12] <bluesabre> should be pretty painless to plug light-locker in though, I think I can do it tonight
[11:12] <ochosi> nice
[11:13] <brainwash> do the elementary guys include light-locker into their settings interface?
[11:13] <bluesabre> they will probably write a plug for it
[11:13] <ochosi> i'll talk to the others about whether we want that patch upstream as well, since it detects light-locker and all
[11:13] <ochosi> yeah, they either have been working on it already or are working on it
[11:14] <ochosi> but also included in some security/privacy plug i think
[11:14] <brainwash> light-locker-settings will not be maintained anymore?
[11:14] <ochosi> nope
[11:14] <brainwash> ok :)
[11:14] <ochosi> everybody can change settings via dconf-editor et al now
[11:14] <bluesabre> I'll probably do another patch to make lls work
[11:14] <ochosi> meh :)
[11:14] <bluesabre> not everybody will use xfpm
[11:14] <ochosi> i thought we were getting rid of maintenance load here
[11:15] <ochosi> yeah true, but then again, gsettings...
[11:15] <bluesabre> we can ask for it to be removed from the archive then
[11:15] <bluesabre> I don't want something with our names on it to not work ;)
[11:15] <ochosi> also, there was a plan to have a cli switches to change light-locker's settings
[11:16] <ochosi> bluesabre: well, we can just add a note: "works with light-locker <=1.4"
[11:16] <ochosi> imo that's enough
[11:16] <bluesabre> right
[11:16] <bluesabre> but it would need to be removed from the archive
[11:16] <ochosi> or saying "this piece of software is deprecated and only works with..."
[11:16] <bluesabre> where light-locker 1.5.1 will now reside
[11:16] <ochosi> yeah
[11:16] <ochosi> true
[11:17] <bluesabre> or we can just patch it for the new gsettings (minimal work) and users can enjoy it
[11:17] <ochosi> i was actually thinking of the launchpad page for some reason
[11:17] <ochosi> heh, as you wish
[11:17] <bluesabre> :)
[11:17] <ochosi> as long as you promise that we do this *after* the workitems i added last night
[11:18] <bluesabre> ofc
[11:18] <bluesabre> lls is not top priority
[11:18] <ochosi> (cause i know you love python and would much rather do that then work on xfpm)
[11:18] <bluesabre> but Unit193, do not drop from the archive until I've uploaded the fixes for lls
[11:18] <bluesabre> otherwise will have a fun time trying to sponsor
[11:25] <Unit193> Archive being seed? :)
[11:25] <ochosi> :)
[11:26] <Unit193> bluesabre: I wasn't going to drop until xfpm got the fix, or until the new one was usable that is.  Besides, isn't Lubuntu the "only" other seeder of it?  They have xfpm (though, issues with OnlyShowIn=xfce)
[11:28] <ochosi> yeah, i think lubuntu is the only one
[11:28] <ochosi> what do -studio and myth- do?
[11:28] <Unit193> Don't know, but they don't directly seed it.
[11:29] <Unit193> Then there is also Debian #745509, but not really your problem.
[11:31] <Unit193> ochosi: xscreensaver.
[11:36] <bluesabre> k
[11:36] <bluesabre> gotta run, bbl
[11:36] <ochosi> ttyl bluesabre 
[11:38] <ochosi> hmpf, indicator-sound is still a bit borked with gtk3.14
[11:39] <ochosi> yay custom widgetry
[11:39] <bluesabre> I'll also try to get indicator things added to the seed today, unless you guys want to poke it
[11:40] <bluesabre> really bbl
[11:40] <ochosi> Unit193: ^ ?
[11:40] <ochosi> k :)
[11:40] <Unit193> Hmm?
[11:42] <ochosi> the indicator things for ubiquity
[11:42] <ochosi> (at least i assume that's what bluesabre meant with "indicator things")
[11:42] <ochosi> has that commit of yours even been looked at/merged yet?
[11:46] <Unit193> I'd presume he means add indicator-{sound,application} to the packageset, because I know of nothing else.  And not that I know of, no.
[11:55] <ochosi> have you subscribed xnox to it yet?
[11:57] <Unit193> I may not have, yeah.
[12:11] <ochosi> bluesabre: please don't forget to actually approve the MR: https://code.launchpad.net/~unit193/ubiquity/xfwm4-panel/+merge/244437
[12:12] <Unit193> Into Ubiquity itself? :)
[12:13] <ochosi> well you asked for his review
[12:13] <ochosi> not sure xnox will approve if there's another MR-review pending
[18:06] <ochosi> knome: thanks for replying to Ridell, i thought we don't have to actively opt-out of a1 (otherwise i'd have sent an email to -release earlier already)
[18:27] <elfy> ochosi: we might not need to actively optout - but I got asked (same time as knome) so it's only polite to reply :)
[21:13] <knome> ochosi, what elfy said :)
[23:52] <bluesabre> ochosi, Unit193: if there are panel indicator things, then yes
[23:53] <ochosi> oh hey bluesabre 
[23:53] <bluesabre> otherwise, I was talking about libindicator et
[23:53] <ochosi> oh, the python thingy for bluetooth?
[23:54] <bluesabre> yeah, that one
[23:54] <bluesabre> but I can get to that tonight now that I am home
[23:57] <ochosi> cool