[08:38] <tsdgeos> @unity: mterry wants opinions on whether this is the right approach or not on
[08:38] <tsdgeos> https://code.launchpad.net/~mterry/unity8/turn-on-screen-when-notifying/+merge/267592
[08:38] <tsdgeos> mzanetti: ↑ i guess your opinion is particualarily interesting
[10:18] <tsdgeos> cimi: did you see the other comment i made yesetdday in your ubuntushape branch?
[10:20] <cimi> tsdgeos, nope :/
[10:21] <cimi> tsdgeos, oh no that one yes
[10:21] <cimi> yeah working on it
[10:21] <tsdgeos> ok
[10:26] <kgunn> tsdgeos: mzanetti off today, well he should be (i hope)
[10:27] <tsdgeos> kgunn: ok, how can i help? and isn't it terribly early there?
[10:27] <kgunn> tsdgeos:  a little early :) but no help, i just say mp ping about screen on notifs
[10:28] <tsdgeos> ok
[10:49] <tsdgeos> greyback: what's a Rotatino? :D
[10:49] <greyback> damn, you saw
[10:49] <tsdgeos> ;)
[10:49] <tsdgeos> it's a small Rotato
[10:50] <greyback> a rotund latino?
[10:51] <tsdgeos> that works too :D
[10:51] <tsdgeos> greyback: jokes aside, is that branch for ota6? do you have a reviewer?
[10:52] <greyback> tsdgeos: I don't think it's critical for OTA6, as the issue is hard to reproduce. OTA7 would be ok.
[10:52] <tsdgeos> oki
[10:52] <greyback> kgunn: opinion?
[10:53] <kgunn> greyback: i was pushing that with bill last night, that what we had was "good enough"
[10:53] <kgunn> altho then i saw him whinging about it failing his 100+ case
[10:53] <kgunn> but had a hard time following
[10:54] <greyback> kgunn: 100+ apps?
[10:54] <kgunn> greyback: i thot it was 100+ photos...but related to ghosting, but maybe i lost context and conflated diff bugs?
[10:54] <greyback> I accept the gallery app after being a picker shadow thing is worth fixing
[10:55] <kgunn> ok, so it was "related"
[10:55] <greyback> yep
[10:55] <kgunn> greyback: was bill dug in on that being fixed for ota6 ?
[10:55] <greyback> for Bill's issue, I mailed a test patch last night. I want Dan to have a look
[10:55] <davmor2> kgunn: you are either in London or up really earlie
[10:55] <davmor2> early even
[10:55] <greyback> kgunn: yeah, he was not budging on it, and I see his point
[10:56] <kgunn> greyback: ok, so patched the original fix that dan had in silo 17 ?
[10:56] <greyback> kgunn: yep, a patch on top
[10:56] <greyback> it's not in silo17 yet
[10:56] <greyback> as it opens a application management hole, and I want Daniel's opinion on it
[10:57] <kgunn> greyback: ok, cool, yeah the other mp albert asking about i assume is ghostApps-preemptQuitters ?
[10:57] <kgunn> or something else?
[10:58] <greyback> kgunn: something else https://code.launchpad.net/~gerboland/unity8/fixGhostAppsWithRotatino/+merge/268729
[10:58] <greyback> much harder to reproduce issue
[10:58] <greyback> which I don't think is that urgent to fix
[10:58] <kgunn> ah...the rotatino reference (could also be very small totino's pizzas....a terrible frozen food in the U.S.)
[10:59] <greyback> :)
[11:00] <kgunn> greyback: agree it's a good fix, but feels like a bridge too far
[11:01] <kgunn> as we are well past the eve of ota6
[11:01] <kgunn> altho it seems pretty isolated
[11:01] <kgunn> only in spread only for rotation (or rotatino)
[11:02] <greyback> rah
[11:03] <kgunn> greyback: probably not a bad idea to prioritize it's review and testing tho, b/c overlay ppa is technically not frozen...
[11:03] <greyback> true
[11:03] <kgunn> they took a snapshot this time, so things can still land
[11:03] <kgunn> and there's a "flaw" that if they come back to trunk for a fix, they get whatever else landed ;)
[11:13] <kgunn> and davmor2 just up early
[11:15] <ljagielski> Hi, is there anyone I can CC about dbusmenu bug?
[11:15] <ljagielski> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libdbusmenu/+bug/1468280
[11:17] <greyback> ljagielski: Trevinho should be able to lend a hand
[11:19] <Trevinho> ljagielski: that bug should have been fixed recently
[11:19] <Trevinho> ljagielski: that's when running in unity?
[11:20] <ljagielski> Trevinho: so mine is a duplicate? yes, under Unity
[11:21] <Trevinho> ljagielski: yes... it's fixed in 15.10, not in .04
[11:21] <Trevinho> ljagielski: it should be a dupe of https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/indicator-appmenu/+bug/1430059 right?
[11:22] <Trevinho> ljagielski: i can prepare a SRU if needed
[11:25] <ljagielski> Trevinho: I'd be happy to have the fix in older distros, but I'veonly seen it in 15.04
[11:26] <Trevinho> ljagielski: that's the only one affected, in fact
[11:40] <ljagielski> Trevinho: I'm glad with what I've found out, I will just use indicator-appmenu from ppa myself for now
[11:41] <Trevinho> ljagielski: I'm about to sru it now*, btw... (*after sru process is done, so subscribe to the bug if you want to help with that :))
[11:41] <Trevinho> ljagielski: also this means that you can use a ppa in few minutes
[12:56] <kgunn> dandrader: did gerry already catch you ? to review latest https://code.launchpad.net/~unity-team/qtmir/ghostApps-preemptQuitters/+merge/268737
[12:58] <dandrader> kgunn, no
[12:59] <greyback> dandrader: hey! You got mail :)
[12:59] <kgunn> dandrader: ok, seems bfiller tested (see phablet)
[12:59] <kgunn> and it's all good
[13:49] <cimi> tsdgeos, on that bug, is actually a bugfix
[13:49] <tsdgeos> cimi: that's going to be a tough sell
[13:49] <tsdgeos> :D
[13:49] <cimi> tsdgeos, it is correctly using PreserveAspectFit as stated, it never did before
[13:50] <cimi> tsdgeos, the value we had for the images inside was PreserveAspectFit, but never worked
[13:50] <cimi> now it dows
[13:50] <cimi> does
[13:52] <tsdgeos> cimi: right, but which one does look better?
[13:52] <cimi> tsdgeos, none
[13:52] <cimi> tsdgeos, stretching is not nice too
[13:52] <cimi> tsdgeos, maybe we should have crop?
[13:53] <tsdgeos> honestly if this is a "don't use depreacted mebmers" MR
[13:53] <tsdgeos> i'd prefer to not change the behaviour
[13:53] <cimi> tsdgeos, but the behaviour was wrong
[13:53] <tsdgeos> sure
[13:54] <tsdgeos> but keeping MRs focused really helps
[13:55] <cimi> I see your point
[13:55] <cimi> tsdgeos, I will not use the new ubuntushape then here
[13:55] <tsdgeos> cimi: why not?
[13:55] <tsdgeos> i see that you did move something out of the image
[13:56] <tsdgeos> to the ubuntu shape
[13:56] <tsdgeos> if you don't do that, do we keep the old behaviour?
[13:56] <cimi> tsdgeos, it uses the old ubuntushape if I don't move
[13:56] <cimi> tsdgeos, if I use "source" property instead "image" it switches to the new ubuntushape
[13:57] <cimi> tsdgeos, when using the new ubuntushape, the properties of the Image, like alignment and fillmode MUST be set from the ubuntushape and not inside the source
[13:57] <cimi> tsdgeos, they are ignored
[13:57] <cimi> what is inside the Image { ... } is ignored I mean
[13:57] <tsdgeos> but you say they were ignored before too?
[13:58] <tsdgeos> so maybe just leave them and they will behave as before?
[13:58] <tsdgeos> maybe even add a // TODO investigate proper way to do this since moving this out changes behaviour
[13:58] <tsdgeos> or something?
[13:58] <cimi> tsdgeos, I believe ubuntushape takes the texture of source property and applies horizontal/vertical alignment and fillmode set with sourceFillMode / sourceHAlignment
[13:59] <cimi> tsdgeos, before, there was simply a bug somewhere...
[13:59] <tsdgeos> ok :/
[13:59] <tsdgeos> i don't know
[13:59] <cimi> tsdgeos, inside the image: Image { ... } we had preserveFit
[13:59] <cimi> tsdgeos, but clearly was not working
[14:00] <cimi> tsdgeos, I can use the old ubuntushape as said, and keep as it is
[14:00] <tsdgeos> but that's also not so great
[14:00] <tsdgeos> as we're doing this branch to use the new one :D
[14:01] <tsdgeos> is there no way we can use the new one and keep the behaviour?
[14:01] <tsdgeos> or you think that's not right either?
[14:02] <cimi> tsdgeos, I think it was using crop before
[14:03] <tsdgeos> i mean we don't know if whoever coded the code actually wanted preserveFit or just had it there from a copy &paste and what actually liked was how it behaved
[14:03] <cimi> o stretch maybe
[14:04]  * cimi looks
[14:13] <greyback> there is a "ProportionalShape", maybe that helps?
[14:15] <cimi> greyback, it's a different thing
[14:15] <cimi> greyback, that is an ubuntushape which radius is proportional to the dimension
[14:15] <cimi> width/height
[14:16] <greyback> cimi: ok, just thought I'd suggest in case it wasn't known about
[14:16] <greyback> carry on :)
[14:22] <mterry> Out of curiousity, does testDirectionalDragArea work for anyone else?  I get a fatal error from ubuntu-ui-toolkit about not enough GL surfaces to go around.  I've been looking into it, but want to confirm I'm not the only one
[14:23] <tsdgeos> mterry: i have a fix :D
[14:23] <mterry> tsdgeos, oh good!
[14:23] <mterry> tsdgeos, why was it not seeing the openglcontext aboutToBeDestroyed signal?
[14:23] <tsdgeos> mterry: https://code.launchpad.net/~aacid/ubuntu-ui-toolkit/betterConnectForAboutToBeDestroyed/+merge/268454
[14:24] <tsdgeos> mterry: "The old code assumes that the UbuntuShape will still be around when the opengl context is destroyed, but that seldom happens so connect the signal to a lambda that will be there and does the cleanup properly"
[14:24] <mterry> tsdgeos, ah makes sense
[14:24] <mterry> tsdgeos, thanks
[14:24] <tsdgeos> yeah now we need the thing to land into a release
[14:25] <mterry> tsdgeos, we can also work around it ourselves by not using Button in that test
[14:25] <mterry> tsdgeos, if we wanted to not be on their schedule
[14:25] <tsdgeos> mterry: but i'd actually leave it
[14:25] <tsdgeos> in case it comes back :D
[14:25] <tsdgeos> it's good we caught this
[14:25] <tsdgeos> a bit too high on the stack
[14:25] <tsdgeos> but at least it's caught somewhere
[14:25] <mterry> tsdgeos, for sure.  once they landed the fix, I'd want to go back to Button
[14:26] <mterry> Just saying it was an option if we liked to get passing tests again  :)
[14:26] <mterry> Since our unit test framework is not the ideal place for catching UITK bugs  :)
[14:29] <tsdgeos> sure
[14:29] <tsdgeos> i tried adding a test there
[14:29] <tsdgeos> but they don't have xvfb nor opengl on their tests
[14:29] <tsdgeos> so wasn't an option
[14:29] <tsdgeos> unless i wanted to spend weeks
[14:30] <tsdgeos> i can also pester the sdk guys to see when/if they'll release a new sdk with the fix
[14:31] <mterry> Yeah, if it's not soon, we should work around it temporarily.  Seems silly to have our unit tests hostage to another project
[14:39] <tsdgeos> mterry: ah i reviewer your branch for saving to disk the delay stuff
[14:39] <tsdgeos> it ain't working
[14:39] <dandrader> josharenson, looks ok on a first, quick, look
[14:40] <mterry> tsdgeos, I noticed, was about to investigate why...
[14:40] <mterry> It worked for me...
[14:41] <tsdgeos> mterry: maybe you forgot to commit?
[14:41] <tsdgeos> the variable that makes the thing work is never set
[14:41] <tsdgeos> it's either undefined or 0
[14:44] <cimi> tsdgeos, I used crop, which looks better to me, and removed unused properties
[14:44] <tsdgeos> oki, did you push?
[14:48] <josharenson> dandrader: cool, seems more elegant than the original one