[08:09] <mariogrip> RAOF: Now that mir 2.12 is in debian, would it be an idea to update mir in ubuntu also? Its needed for lomiri https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lomiri/0.1-3
[08:11] <RAOF> Yes it would; it's high on my to-do list 😀
[08:11] <mariogrip> RAOF: Nice thanks :D 
[08:13] <mariogrip> I wonder, would it be a good idea to not rely on session authorizer to add sessions to qtmir to then again add surfaces on the list, since it seems some surfaces does not have session? is this correct? 
[08:13] <RAOF> (slightly below that, but still pretty high, is resolving the Debian diff so that we can just upload to Debian and then sync)
[08:15] <RAOF> All surfaces should belong to a session, but in the presence of xwayland that session can be surprising, I think.
[08:16] <mariogrip> RAOF: I found this https://github.com/MirServer/mir/issues/2830 but some surfaces (like menu in firefox) does not seem to be in the same surface
[08:16] <mariogrip> RAOF: I found this https://github.com/MirServer/mir/issues/2830 but some surfaces (like menu in firefox) does not seem to be in the same session
[08:19] <mariogrip> is miral::ApplicationAuthorizer the same as SessionAuthorizer?
[08:26] <RAOF> Hm. I would have thought ask of Firefox's windows would get NET_WM_PID set, which should put them in the same session?
[09:54] <alan_g[m]> <mariogrip> "is miral::ApplicationAuthorizer..." <- It is the published API for it, yes
[09:58] <alan_g[m]> <mariogrip> "I wonder, would it be a good..." <- Surfaces always belong to a session, they cannot be created without. But X11 clients cannot be relied upon to set properties correctly, and the session used may be spurious
[10:02] <alan_g[m]> Hmm, it is possible to hold a shared_ptr to a surface whose session has been deleted. But the surface should have been removed from the scene and only the holding reference is likely to be the only one. (This doesn't sound like your scenario)
[11:45] -GitHub[m]:#mir-server- **[MirServer/mir]** AlanGriffiths opened [pull request #2832](https://github.com/MirServer/mir/pull/2832): Add a .display-layout configuration file... (full message at <https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/v3/download/libera.chat/4da2a4e37a75b2161da5684dc138c2975cb4646d>)
[12:01] -GitHub[m]:#mir-server- **[MirServer/ubuntu-frame]** AlanGriffiths drafted [pull request #125](https://github.com/MirServer/ubuntu-frame/pull/125): Add a display-layout option... (full message at <https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/v3/download/libera.chat/2f3d61e35782fa3840e2402f2fdb4e1b64d72e55>)
[12:02] -GitHub[m]:#mir-server- **[MirServer/ubuntu-frame]** AlanGriffiths closed [pull request #125](https://github.com/MirServer/ubuntu-frame/pull/125): Add a display-layout option
[12:02] -GitHub[m]:#mir-server- **[MirServer/ubuntu-frame]** AlanGriffiths drafted [pull request #126](https://github.com/MirServer/ubuntu-frame/pull/126): display-layout
[12:03] -GitHub[m]:#mir-server- **[MirServer/ubuntu-frame]** AlanGriffiths edited [pull request #126](https://github.com/MirServer/ubuntu-frame/pull/126): Add a display-layout option
[12:04] -GitHub[m]:#mir-server- **[MirServer/ubuntu-frame]** AlanGriffiths edited [pull request #126](https://github.com/MirServer/ubuntu-frame/pull/126): Add a display-layout option
[15:22] -GitHub[m]:#mir-server- **[MirServer/ubuntu-frame]** AlanGriffiths opened [issue #127](https://github.com/MirServer/ubuntu-frame/issues/127): When display layout is changed to overlap outputs the background is incorrectly updated... (full message at <https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/v3/download/libera.chat/5a60c24fd016ada9424616a631608add704b6961>)