[11:59] <Saviq> oops /me broke jenkins overnight, fixed now
[12:02] <ltinkl> Saviq, is it why this one failed: https://code.launchpad.net/~lukas-kde/unity8/noResizeUnderPanel/+merge/288079 ?
[12:02] <Saviq> ltinkl, yeah, sorry, restarted now
[12:06] <Saviq> that happens when you try to work until 7am ;P
[12:19] <cimi> pstolowski, hey man, can we setup a silo with https://code.launchpad.net/~cimi/unity8/card-social/+merge/288083 and your branches?
[12:22] <dandrader> mzanetti I'm assuming we won't force a window to close itself when you click on its close button in desktop/windowed mode, right? (unlike staging mode, where we destroy the surface if the application doesn't comply witthin some time limit)
[12:22] <dandrader> mzanetti, so in windowed mode you can click as much as you want in the close button and all it will do is send close request do the client, not forcing anything, like in Unity 7.
[12:23] <mzanetti> dandrader, so, unity7 eventually pops up a window saying "application XXX doesn't respond any more. Do you want to close it? Yes/No". I would think we want that too
[12:23] <mzanetti> not saying it is a requirement for your first branch...
[12:23] <mzanetti> but eventually we want that for sure
[12:24] <dandrader> mzanetti, I thinkg that's a separate thing, that dialog is send when the window stops responding to x11 pings or stops redrawing
[12:24] <dandrader> s/send/sent
[12:25] <mzanetti> also when it refuses to close
[12:27] <dandrader> mzanetti, no it does not. just tested
[12:27] <mzanetti> really... strange... I was quite sure about that, did not explicitly test it right now tho
[12:27] <mzanetti> dandrader, so it forces it to shut down eventually?
[12:28] <dandrader> mzanetti, you mean Unity7? No
[12:28] <dandrader> mzanetti, the close button sends a close request, that's all. no strings attached
[12:29] <mzanetti> ok well then... lets do what unity7 does (which is the general design guideline unless being told otherwise)
[12:29] <mzanetti> but I'll put that on my list to have a chat with design about it
[12:29] <mzanetti> to me it seems we should give the user the power over this without forcing him to type kill -9 on cli
[12:32] <dandrader> mzanetti, desktop apps traditionally have a lot of freedom. just try that: open libre office calc. do some modifications. click on close button. "Save Document?" dialog pops up. You click on Cancel. libreoffice calc keeps running
[12:32] <mzanetti> dandrader, right... I think ltinkl has done some groundwork to enable that, you might want to check with him
[12:33] <mzanetti> dandrader, still, I believe if the user wants to close an app, and the app doesn't do eventually, the user should have the power to force it. in any case, if you go the unity7 route for now, we're certainly not making a mistake
[12:33] <mzanetti> I'll discuss with design
[12:34] <dandrader> mzanetti, the dillema between improving things and breaking compatibility
[12:37] <mzanetti> yep. but eventually popping up that dialog and allowing the user to kill the app (with a hint about potentially lost data) doesn't seem like breaking compatibility. more like a new feature on top of the old compatibility
[12:42] <ltinkl> mzanetti, dandrader: closing from GUI shouldn't kill things forcefully imho; there should be a "kill zombie windows" facility that does that instead; I believe Mir has something like that
[12:43] <dandrader> ltinkl, wonder what mir has to do with it. we can just call "mir destroy surface" from qtmir, no special API for that
[12:47] <ltinkl> dandrader, Mir can detect apps not responding
[12:47] <dandrader> ltinkl, not responding != not destroying its surface upon receiving a close request
[12:48] <ltinkl> dandrader, right, that's rather a complement
[12:48] <ltinkl> dandrader, otherwise there's mir::scene::TimeoutApplicationNotRespondingDetector
[12:52] <dandrader> ltinkl, no, they're different things really. not responding is when the client does not ack/reply to messages/events sent from the server,  or eg, when the client doesn't redraw even though it was told it got resized
[12:52] <ltinkl> dandrader, yeah, that's what I said, a complement
[12:55] <ltinkl> Saviq, jenkins still seems broken: https://unity8-jenkins.ubuntu.com/job/lp-unity8-ci/594/
[12:57] <Saviq> ltinkl, yeah I know, not sure what's going on
[12:58] <Saviq> ah!
[12:59] <Saviq> dumb thing
[13:02] <Saviq> ltinkl, fixed for real
[13:13] <ltinkl> Saviq, does it run any tests?
[13:13] <Saviq> ltinkl, it will now
[13:14] <Saviq> ltinkl, https://unity8-jenkins.ubuntu.com/job/lp-unity8-ci/597/
[13:14] <Saviq> has to build first
[13:18] <pstolowski> cimi, sure, doing
[13:23] <pstolowski> cimi, please make it depend on unity-scopes-impl-10 (i just bumped it in shell plugin)
[13:31] <Saviq> pstolowski, what's the deal with silo 76 do you know? it's blocked now?
[13:32] <pstolowski> Saviq, looking at latest comment, davmor2 needs help with online account
[13:58] <davmor2> pstolowski: already had a reply from mardy
[13:58] <davmor2> pstolowski: need kyleN to make the mods I think as he has the source and then should be good I think, everything else checks out though
[13:59] <pstolowski> davmor2, as, so the problem is with kyleN's scope using online accounts, not with existing scopes?
[13:59] <pstolowski> * ah
[14:00] <davmor2> pstolowski: yeap it never set up the account correctly so you never are able to login to the only scope we know that uses the feature
[14:01] <pstolowski> davmor2, i see, ack, thanks!
[14:01] <pstolowski> Saviq, ^
[14:02] <davmor2> So fingers cross should be able to land it as soon as I can confirm that the new feature doesn't blow up the universe :)
[14:04] <Saviq> davmor2, any ETA? must say we might skip that if we need to wait long
[14:05] <davmor2> Saviq: I'm kinda hoping today only I have seen Kyle online yet
[14:05] <davmor2> haven't even
[14:05] <Saviq> oh well, there's always Monday, UITK wouldn't get tested before then anyway
[14:06] <Saviq> davmor2, just note https://code.launchpad.net/~unity-team/unity8/trunk/+activereviews ;P
[14:07] <davmor2> Saviq: nice, FAILED!  we'll just take the guess work out straight away for you ;)
[14:10] <pstolowski> Saviq, filters silo also in the pipeline..
[14:11] <Saviq> don't I know it
[14:13] <cimi> pstolowski, bumped dep
[14:13] <pstolowski> cimi, k, thanks
[14:13] <cimi> yw
[14:15] <cimi> tsdgeos, you can start having a look here https://code.launchpad.net/~cimi/unity8/card-social/+merge/288083
[14:16] <tsdgeos> oka
[14:16] <cimi> tsdgeos, I might also use one of your cardcreator branches as prereq
[14:16] <cimi> tsdgeos, they should go in first, no?
[14:16] <tsdgeos> i don't know :D
[14:16] <tsdgeos> cimi: i guess get one that was already approved
[14:16] <cimi> yeah :D
[14:16] <tsdgeos> and you can put yourself on top of that one
[14:16] <cimi> but there were more than one so
[14:16] <tsdgeos> they're all chained
[14:17]  * cimi needs to be less lazy and look at all the chain
[14:17] <tsdgeos> i just proposed one and working on another simple one :D
[14:17] <tsdgeos> sorry
[14:17] <tsdgeos> we just need some faster landings :D
[14:19] <cimi> tsdgeos, lp:~aacid/unity8/cardCreatorFixedHeaderSizeOptimization
[14:19] <cimi> tsdgeos, that one it seems
[14:20] <cimi> or yesterday one
[14:20] <cimi> :eek:
[14:20] <tsdgeos> that one is approved
[14:20] <cimi> tsdgeos, but keep having small branches
[14:20] <cimi> tsdgeos, I like that very much :)
[14:20] <tsdgeos> well makes it easire to review i guess
[14:20] <cimi> A LOT
[14:21] <tsdgeos> then on top of that one there's https://code.launchpad.net/~aacid/unity8/appStoreCardWeirdSizing/+merge/287920 on top that there's https://code.launchpad.net/~aacid/unity8/cardArtShapeStyleOnCompileTime/+merge/288103
[14:21] <tsdgeos> but i guess you can put yours on top of cardCreatorFixedHeaderSizeOptimization and i'll rebase the other two if needed
[14:21] <tsdgeos> yours is actually more important since it's a feature :d
[14:25] <cimi> tsdgeos, yeah I can't wait to dislike some facebook posts :)
[14:25] <tsdgeos> :)
[14:26] <cimi> tsdgeos, did you merge trunk in yours?
[14:26] <tsdgeos> cimi: which one is "yours"?
[14:26] <tsdgeos> lp:~aacid/unity8/cardCreatorFixedHeaderSizeOptimization ?
[14:26] <cimi> indeed
[14:26] <cimi> want to avoid criss cross
[14:26] <cimi> mines has trunk
[14:26] <cimi> already...
[14:27] <tsdgeos> let me check
[14:27] <cimi> tx
[14:28] <tsdgeos> cimi: seems not let me remerge the chain
[14:32] <tsdgeos> cimi: done
[15:12] <Mirv> tsdgeos: piiing. top approve please https://code.launchpad.net/~aacid/unity8/new_sdk_notif_test_fixes/+merge/287612
[15:12] <Mirv> Saviq: ^
[15:13] <tsdgeos> Mirv: i can't top aprove myself ;)
[15:13] <Saviq> Mirv, done, what's happening with the silo then? 76 got blocked, hopefully will still land today
[15:14] <Saviq> like no rebuilds needed, just testing was difficult
[15:15] <Mirv> Saviq: nothing I guess unless QA thinks it's eventually easier to land it than 76 if it continues to take time, but finally enough unity8 autopkgtest retries so that they succeeded for that. I'll rebuild unity8 as needed.
[15:16] <Saviq> Mirv, ack
[15:17] <Saviq> Mirv, "enough retries", were there failures still?
[15:17] <Mirv> Saviq: yeah, at least three amd64 failures, now all succeeded
[15:17] <Mirv> maybe infra issues, dunno
[15:17] <Saviq> Mirv, not expected
[15:19] <Mirv> Saviq: https://objectstorage.prodstack4-5.canonical.com/v1/AUTH_77e2ada1e7a84929a74ba3b87153c0ac/autopkgtest-xenial-ci-train-ppa-service-landing-050/xenial/amd64/u/unity8/20160304_100358@/log.gz was one
[15:19] <Mirv> FAIL!  : qmltestrunner::PreviewRatingDisplayTest::test_creation_speed() 'verify()' returned FALSE. ()
[15:19] <Saviq> interesting
[15:19] <Saviq> we'll have to keep an eye out
[15:20] <Saviq> test_comboEnsureVisible is a known flaky one
[15:46] <tsdgeos> cimi: can you please set commit message and description https://code.launchpad.net/~cimi/unity8/card-social/+merge/288083 ?
[15:47] <cimi> tsdgeos, it is still WIP but ok
[15:50] <tsdgeos> cimi: ah i tought it was ready to go
[15:57] <cimi> tsdgeos, almost
[15:57] <cimi> tsdgeos, like, I want to test it in silo
[15:57] <cimi> personally
[15:57] <tsdgeos> k
[16:42] <davmor2> Saviq, pstolowski: silo just passed took a bit but got there \o/
[16:42] <Saviq> davmor2, awesome, thank yo
[16:42] <Saviq> u
[16:42] <Saviq> Mirv, ↑
[16:42] <pstolowski> davmor2, awesome! thanks for persisting on testing that scope!
[16:43] <Saviq> Mirv, I will make sure it gets through migration and 50 gets rebuilt over the weekend
[16:43] <pstolowski> gives us more confidence
[16:49] <Mirv> Saviq: thanks, publishing
[16:54] <pstolowski> cimi, would be great to have a test scope for that functionality
[16:54] <cimi> pstolowski, what social
[16:54] <cimi> ?
[16:54] <pstolowski> cimi, tes
[16:54] <pstolowski> yes
[16:55] <cimi> pstolowski, tes is a mix of tak and yes? :)
[16:55] <pstolowski> cimi, i'll see if i can quickly hack something based on an existing test scopes
[16:55] <pstolowski> :)
[16:56] <pstolowski> stuff for Monday
[16:57] <cimi> pstolowski, enjoy weekend :)
[16:57] <pstolowski> thanks, you too!
[20:23] <Mirv> Saviq: 076 migrated but now unity8 merge conflict in 050, that would need resolving
[20:42] <Saviq> Mirv, ack
[20:43] <Saviq> ugh, fookin' bzr
[20:52] <Saviq> Mirv, building, and btw, what do you mean "migrated", like without prodding, retrying or anything!? ;)
[20:55] <Saviq> oh you guys
[20:55] <Saviq> don't you know you're working with a handicapped dvcs