[08:59] <sil2100> Hey guys! I'll be pushing a manual no-change rebuild of mir for xenial-overlay, please ignore it during the next release you do
[09:04] <duflu> sil2100: Umkay
[09:04] <duflu> sil2100: What did kdub say about the test failure?
[09:40] <sil2100> duflu: he said that it might be the more an issue with the test suite than anything else
[09:41] <duflu> sil2100: OK, well so long as no one is weakening the test suite and there's no evidence that it used to work on the given device that's probably fine
[14:00] <bneo99__> hi, im getting problems when running mir_demo_standalone_render_to_fb
[14:00] <bneo99__> logcat output http://pastebin.com/5SJ5s3Rs
[14:01] <bneo99__> my device's screen stays black when i tired executing the command
[14:10] <alan_g> bneo99__: what's the device? Have you run mirbacklight to force the screen on? Does mir_demo_standalone_render_to_fb report anything (to console)?
[14:12] <bneo99__> device is i9100g (samsung galaxy s2), just tried mirbacklight but screen still black even thought the console telles me its set to 100 percent
[14:13] <bneo99__> output from mir demo standalone render to fb http://pastebin.com/dgPdN3iu
[14:19] <alan_g> I've not see all those linker diagnostics before. kdub does this ^^ mean something to you?
[14:21] <kdub> bneo99__, you might want to try rev3650 which included a fix for older ti devices
[14:22] <kdub> the patch need unreverting, as it was backed out in rev 3662 due to issues it caused on powervr
[14:22] <kdub> but it might help
[14:23] <bneo99__> okay ill have a look at that
[14:24] <NeKit> but that ti device also have powervr, it's not a problem, right?
[14:29] <kdub> should have said 'on mtk'
[15:02] <bneo99__> tried rev3661, backlight control seems to work now but its only showing the samsung screen
[15:02] <bneo99__> http://pastebin.com/re59YA9u
[15:02] <bneo99__> logcat http://pastebin.com/aYu1kBkj
[15:46] <mterry> What's the story with unity-system-compositor's code branches?  Trunk seems behind 0.7, should I base MPs off of 0.7 and propose them merged into 0.7?
[15:52] <mterry> alf ^?
[15:54] <alf_> mterry: You should ideally base them on trunk, and if needed we can cherrypick into latest stable (0.7 in this case)
[15:54] <alf_> mterry: Note that trunk needs mir trunk to build and run
[15:54] <mterry> alf_: you make it sound like trunk is a head of 0.7, but that doesn't seem to be the cae
[15:54] <mterry> case
[15:57] <alf_> mterry: trunk and 0.7 should be treated as completely independent (but of course 0.7 was branched off trunk at some point). Not sure how I implied "trunk is a head of 0.7"?
[15:59] <alf_> mterry: What I meant is that MPs should always target trunk first (that's our focus of development), and can be also cherrypicked into the current stable if needed urgently.
[15:59] <mterry> alf_: well you implied that trunk was dev and 0.7 was stable branch.  But in most projects I'm familiar with, dev is typically a superset of the stable
[16:00] <mterry> alf_: for example, it's tough to use my MP in a silo because trunk's version is < 0.
[16:00] <mterry> 7
[16:00] <mterry> Also tough because I need mir trunk I guess, but that's more expected
[16:01] <alf_> mterry: Oh, that's because we haven't merged back the changes from the released version. I can do that for you if it makes your life easier.
[16:01] <mterry> Maybe I should make a fake MP against 0.7 just for silo testing purposes
[16:01] <mterry> alf_: well that's all I was saying about trunk being behind
[16:02] <mterry> alf_: but I can work around it for now by making a new 0.7 MP for testing.  That will be easier anyway cause I won't need new mir
[16:03] <alf_> mterry: ok, in any case I will merge back soon anyway after https://requests.ci-train.ubuntu.com/#/ticket/1845 lands to get the latest changelog
[16:04] <alf_> mterry: btw, https://requests.ci-train.ubuntu.com/#/ticket/1845 contains the MIR fixes
[16:04] <mterry> alf_: cool thx
[16:05] <mterry> alf_: the MP I'm talking about is https://code.launchpad.net/~mterry/unity-system-compositor/default-wallpaper/+merge/297791 which has sat there for two months...  is there something I should do to get that reviewed?
[16:09] <alf_> mterry: I guess poking me is the best thing you could have done, I will take a look tomorrow
[16:09] <mterry> alf_: :)  thanks