[08:37] <Mirv> tsdgeos: hey, if you find something I've misunderstood or is being done wrongly, please respond to the e-mail. that's the best I could come up with at this point to be clear on what's the delta from upstream (in xenial).
[08:37] <tsdgeos> Mirv: i'll have a look, thanks for the work :)
[08:41] <Saviq> Mirv, hmm why are we changing REVISION 1 and dropping /since 5.7?
[08:41] <Saviq> s/\//\\/
[08:42] <Saviq> Mirv, shouldn't we instead keep the import *with* playlist at 5.7, or just plain only export as 5.7?
[08:44] <Mirv> Saviq: read the e-mail more carefully
[08:45] <Mirv> Saviq: so the first pastebin is "with Jim's hacks". I try to keep them for the possibility they're needed for a quick hack. as I say, I'd be for dropping the _dropping of them_ :)
[08:46] <Saviq> Mirv, ah, ack
[08:47] <Mirv> Saviq: so if comparing "proper upstream version" to "Jim's changes from vivid", _that_ drops REVISION 1 and drops \since 5.7. I think that should not be done, but separated those changes to "temporary_vivid_compatibility_hack.patch" in case they can't be dropped in this time frame without affecting vivid
[08:47] <Saviq> Mirv, ack
[08:47] <Mirv> Saviq: yeah, my brain hurt too when I was thinking what I needed to unpack + diff and how :)
[08:49] <Saviq> Mirv, so in any case, with the silo upload we need to import, 5.7 to be able to use Playlist, right?
[08:49] <Mirv> Saviq: not really sure, the hack patch seems to remove the 5.7:s. so maybe 5.6? I think it's only found out by trying to use the build.
[08:50] <Saviq> lol
[08:50] <Mirv> if only using upstream patches, then yes 5.7
[08:53] <Saviq> and that should be our goal, shouldn't it ;)
[08:56] <Mirv> yes, that's the goal. I'm just cautious if I don't understand something that can't be dropped right now without touching vivid.
[08:56] <Mirv> so I leave the final word to Jim at this point where we're more about getting stuff done that doing things in the cleanest way
[08:57] <Mirv> I think he can continue from that upload and use the two patches to show more clearly which changes go to which category
[08:57] <Saviq> ack
[09:39] <Saviq> tsdgeos, the PageHeader test failures happen in CI too http://s-jenkins.ubuntu-ci:8080/job/unity-phablet-qmluitests-vivid/lastCompletedBuild/testReport/
[09:39] <tsdgeos> yeah i saw
[09:40] <tsdgeos> are these the ones you were getting?
[09:40] <Saviq> tsdgeos, yeah
[09:40]  * tsdgeos shakes fist
[09:40] <tsdgeos> ok, let's try again
[09:40] <Saviq> confirmed on trunk alone
[10:02] <tsdgeos> Saviq: interesting i have it passing in xenial and failing in vivid+o :D
[10:06] <tsdgeos> so there's a behaviour difference between vivid and xenial :S
[10:06] <tsdgeos> SDK code and dash code is the same so i'm going to assume Qt's different :/
[10:07] <tsdgeos> hmmm
[10:07] <tsdgeos> actually is SDK the same?
[10:07] <tsdgeos> 1.3.1778+15.04.20151217.1-0ubuntu1 vs 1.3.1761+16.04.20151216.1-0ubuntu1
[10:10] <tsdgeos> zsombi: where does qtdeclarative5-ubuntu-ui-toolkit-plugin 1.3.1778+15.04.20151217.1-0ubuntu1 come from? I can't see it in the bzr log of the sdk
[10:16] <Saviq> tsdgeos, https://launchpad.net/~ci-train-ppa-service/+archive/ubuntu/landing-045 looks like
[10:16] <tsdgeos> so i guess it's slowly landing?
[10:16] <zsombi> tsdgeos: we had some building issues with the toolkit, not sure it has been sorted out, bzoltan_?
[10:16] <Saviq> kinda
[10:16] <Saviq> bzoltan_, is ↑ landing soon-ish?
[10:16] <tsdgeos> so it seems that causes our regression in the dash header
[10:16] <zsombi> but afair the packaging issue has been fixed...
[10:16] <Saviq> I saw it's in overlay already but not in xenial
[10:21] <Saviq> tsdgeos, is it an actual regression for us, or just a test issue
[10:21] <Saviq> ?
[10:22] <tsdgeos> Saviq: it's an actual regression
[10:22] <tsdgeos> the serach bar doesn't get the focus properly
[10:23] <tsdgeos> the second time you click on the search icon after having cancelled a search
[10:24] <tsdgeos> Saviq: i guess i can fix it with some focus call, question is if we want to do that or ask the SDK crew to have a look/revert their change
[10:25] <Saviq> tsdgeos, they should understand the issue, at least
[10:27] <tsdgeos> k, let me create a simpler example for evaluation
[10:40] <bzoltan_> Saviq:  zsombi: tsdgeos: The ubuntu-ui-toolkit - 1.3.1778+15.04.20151217.1-0ubuntu1 is available in the Overlay PPA since Friday
[10:40] <Saviq> bzoltan_, yeah, but it's not there in xenial
[10:40] <Saviq> not even in proposed https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-ui-toolkit
[10:41] <bzoltan_> Saviq: Let me look after that
[10:41] <Saviq> bzoltan_, it's like it didn't get published for some reason (might be bug #1527544 since you released with webbrowser)
[10:41] <bzoltan_> Saviq: very much possible
[10:42] <Saviq> mup, where are you
[10:42] <Saviq> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/oxide-qt/+bug/1527544
[10:42] <bzoltan_> Saviq:  mup is on xmass holiday already :D ...
[11:08] <Saviq> bzoltan_, zsombi, we've got a possible regression with that latest SDK https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-ui-toolkit/+bug/1528178
[11:10] <zsombi> Saviq: tsdgeos: so, the history appears when first time tap on it?
[11:10] <zsombi> then second tap makes it disappear?
[11:10] <zsombi> or I'm not getting the issue here...
[11:11] <tsdgeos> zsombi: well it's pretty clear there's a behaviour change
[11:11] <zsombi> tsdgeos: or... the historty popover steals the focus....
[11:11] <tsdgeos> zsombi: behaviour change
[11:11] <tsdgeos> it did behave like A
[11:11] <tsdgeos> now does behave like B
[11:11] <tsdgeos> now you tell me if this is on purpose or a bug
[11:12] <zsombi> tsdgeos: brilliant... the description wasn't pretty clear again :)
[11:12] <tsdgeos> really?
[11:12] <tsdgeos> it says "Until the version 1.3.1761+16.04.20151216.1-0ubuntu1 did A"
[11:12] <tsdgeos> and then "Using 1.3.1778+15.04.20151217.1-0ubuntu1 it does B"
[11:12] <tsdgeos> i sincerely don't know how much clearer than that can get
[11:13] <zsombi> tsdgeos: excellent
[11:14] <zsombi> tsdgeos: the new direction from UX is that Popups shoudl steal the focus
[11:14] <zsombi> so I think this is what your're facing now
[11:15] <zsombi> tsdgeos: and unfortunately we don't have that many designers around...
[11:17] <zsombi> tsdgeos: and you dont; even have the ability to override that.... damn!
[11:19] <Saviq> zsombi, we just need a SDK-provided history-dropdown for the text field that works as design expected ;)
[11:19] <zsombi> Saviq: yes, I know... and I'm looking on how to get that... you'd need to override the __foreground.forceActiveFocus(){}
[11:20] <zsombi> but that involves to access a damn private property... DAMN!!!
[11:20] <Saviq> zsombi, no, I mean we don't want to care about that, we just need a component in the SDK that does that for us ;)
[11:20] <zsombi> Saviq: ah, ok ÉÖ
[11:20] <zsombi> :)
[11:20] <zsombi> crappy layout
[11:28] <zsombi> Saviq: tsdgeos: do you have any tests for this?
[11:28] <tsdgeos> zsombi: yes, this is how we found out
[11:28] <zsombi> tsdgeos: unit test_
[11:28] <zsombi> ?
[11:28] <tsdgeos> zsombi: yes, this is how we found out
[11:29] <zsombi> tsdgeos: sorry for that... we're not running those...
[11:32] <Saviq> zsombi, you kind-of are, they're in autopkgtests for unity8, but we have another failure there which means it's Always Failed
[11:32] <Saviq> zsombi, and we only started running them in silos last week, so no good process yet
[11:34] <zsombi> Saviq: anyhow... this is an UX change, so this needs to be talked with them
[11:34] <zsombi> s/talked/agreed
[11:34] <bzoltan_> Saviq: tsdgeos: would you come over to this talky  to talk about this issue - https://talky.io/justnow
[11:34] <zsombi> Saviq: as on windowed mode you should be able to navigate up/down in the history and that requires focus to be there in the popup
[11:35] <Saviq> bzoltan_, it will burn our laptops with more than 3-4 people
[11:35] <Saviq> been there, tried that ;)
[11:36] <bzoltan_> Saviq: Hehe :) let's use our weekly hangout then https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/calendar/em9sdGFuLmJhbG9naEBjYW5vbmljYWwuY29t.g04rj4pc565qsh6humb980bt1k?authuser=0
[11:36] <bzoltan_> tsdgeos: zsombi ^
[13:23]  * voxel_ xenial so broken X-(
[14:02] <Mirv> xenial good!
[14:14] <tsdgeos> better
[15:30] <mterry> josharenson, where are we with the slim greeter branch?
[15:30] <josharenson> mterry: haven't looked at it since friday, but saviq said it wasn't working. I see no problem with it however and was waiting to hear back from saviq
[15:31]  * josharenson goes to see if its updated 
[15:31] <mterry> josharenson, sometimes landing a branch is more than a "1"  :)
[15:31] <Saviq> josharenson, not yet, we can't build for xenial, so can't test much
[15:31] <josharenson> Saviq: ah ok
[15:31] <mterry> Saviq, I built in xenial today I thought?
[15:31] <mterry> Saviq, ah
[15:32] <josharenson> Saviq: yeah I'm actually using the unity8 greeter on my xenial box
[15:34] <Saviq> dednick, can you hear us?
[15:35] <dednick> mumble fooked
[16:09] <mterry> Saviq, is that warn-on-legacy-app-launch card urgent?  tedg wants to rejigger ubuntu-app-launch protocol/API as part of the fixes on that side to implement the warning.  Do we need a short-term fix or can we wait for the full fix?
[16:10] <Saviq> mterry, ETA?
[16:11] <mterry> Saviq, I dunno, I haven't seen his proposed changes yet, he's working with tvoss right now on what it would look like.  I have my old hotfix that just handles the launcher (not opening legacy app from other apps or the dash).  That's an easier fix that we could land early if we wanted, but obviously incomplete solution
[16:12] <Saviq> mterry, all in all, we can wait a few weeks, probably
[16:12] <mterry> Saviq, k
[16:12] <Saviq> mterry, so let's keep your thing on the back burner
[16:51] <tedg> Saviq: mterry: I expect that we'll get it landed before the Austin sprint. Definitely the API (first branch), I expect the functionality to be right about then.
[16:51] <Saviq> tedg, ack, we can wait until then I'd say