On 07/11/2012 12:17 PM, Thomas Bechtold wrote:
On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 06:08 +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre [2012-07-10 14:41 -0400]:
It could stop polling until the connection state changes
then.
if you don't poll, you never know if the connection state changed.
My devious
On 06/12/2012 10:30 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 12.06.2012 19:18, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> On 12.06.2012 18:50, Chase Douglas wrote:
>>> My understanding is that this is only a problem if one library compiled
>>> with one standard passes objects to another librar
On 06/12/2012 09:22 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 08.06.2012 17:10, Chris Coulson wrote:
>> I've just finished debugging a Unity crash which occurs when we try a
>> test rebuild of Unity and Nux with GCC4.7 in quantal. Although the
>> original issue was caused by mixing 2 C++ ABI's (because libsig
On 06/08/2012 08:10 AM, Chris Coulson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've just finished debugging a Unity crash which occurs when we try a
> test rebuild of Unity and Nux with GCC4.7 in quantal. Although the
> original issue was caused by mixing 2 C++ ABI's (because libsigc hasn't
> been rebuilt yet in quantal)
Hi all,
I would like to have a developer tool that allows for someone to spin an
ubuntu iso with a set of ppas enabled. Then someone else, say someone
from the design team, could run the iso under test drive or even on
metal to see the changes. I imagine this is possible, but I don't know
where to
On 04/15/2012 11:03 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Back at last UDS in November, we discussed whether it was time to switch to
> presenting 64-bit images as the default image for desktop, like they already
> are for server, now that all new desktop hardware is 64-bit and multiarch is
>
On 03/02/2012 10:14 AM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 08:55:58PM -0800, Chase Douglas wrote:
I'm beginning to think that this is all so complicated even when we
try to be verbose and convey things as accurately as possible that
nothing short of "it just works per
On 02/29/2012 05:22 PM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 01:11:30PM -0800, Chase Douglas wrote:
Hi all,
I'm sending this to both ubuntu-devel and ubuntu-desktop to try to
get a larger pool of feedback.
Here's some random thoughts. I don't have a fully formed
On 02/29/2012 03:32 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 01:11:30 PM Chase Douglas wrote:
Hi all,
I'm sending this to both ubuntu-devel and ubuntu-desktop to try to get a
larger pool of feedback.
I recently added "ClickPad" support in Precise. This i
On 02/29/2012 04:07 PM, Nicholas Skaggs wrote:
Chase, I already had 2 finger tapping for right click in oneiric... This
would be a regression, unless I'm mistaken. The multitouch click and
drag is huge on the these devices, so I would have to say that's the
more important one. Are you saying you
On 02/29/2012 02:11 PM, Nicholas Skaggs wrote:
Chase, I would try and make the use case of clicking and dragging along
with 2 finger clicking work. The other scenario could possibly be worked
out via a ppa or script for users who wish to change or otherwise enable
the split clickpad. I personally
Hi all,
I'm sending this to both ubuntu-devel and ubuntu-desktop to try to get a
larger pool of feedback.
I recently added "ClickPad" support in Precise. This is automatically
picked up by most Synaptics and all Apple Macbook trackpads. It will
soon be picked up by more Synaptics trackpads a
On 01/20/2012 09:21 PM, Rohan Garg wrote:
> There seems to be a bit of a issue with rotating plasmoids on my KDE
> desktop using two fingers ( MacBookPro8,2 ). Earlier I could rotate my
> plasmoids using 2 fingers. That functionality seems to be lost with
> the latest updates ( I'm guessing I need
On 01/20/2012 02:52 PM, Tim Gardner wrote:
> Will any of these updates address cut and paste on a Mac touchpad ? It
> appears to be impossible to select text without using an external mouse.
Not yet. We are still working on that feature and hope to land it before
feature freeze.
--
ubuntu-devel
On 01/20/2012 03:01 AM, Chase Douglas wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We have everything ready (almost) for the upload of the X server into
> Precise. It includes X server 1.11 plus the input stack from 1.12. It
> also includes a bunch of interdependent packages that would break if you
> w
Hi all,
We have everything ready (almost) for the upload of the X server into
Precise. It includes X server 1.11 plus the input stack from 1.12. It
also includes a bunch of interdependent packages that would break if you
were only to update your X server. Here's the known issues with the PPA:
* N
On 01/17/2012 06:48 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Saturday, January 14, 2012 05:17:37 AM Chase Douglas wrote:
>> On Jan 13, 2012, at 10:21 PM, Jonathan Riddell wrote:
>>> On 13 January 2012 16:03, Chase Douglas
> wrote:
>>>> How does this sound? If it works
On 01/17/2012 06:02 PM, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> hi,
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:44:27 +0100
> Chase Douglas wrote:
>>> could you also make sure to make your PPA build for armhf (which is
>>> likely to be the supported arm subarch for precice (to be decided at
>>>
On 01/16/2012 11:18 AM, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> hi,
>
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:03:24 +0100
> Chase Douglas wrote:
>
>> * Pocket copy source and binary packages from the PPA into Precise
>> - This PPA has been blessed and builds amd64, i386, armel, and
>>
On Jan 13, 2012, at 10:21 PM, Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> On 13 January 2012 16:03, Chase Douglas wrote:
>> How does this sound? If it works for everyone, the only remaining
>> question is which qt4-x11 version to upload.
>
> Qt 4 4.8 is about to be uploaded, got a new patch
Hi all,
We're now all ready to push the new X server to Precise. This will cause
breakages for many items, so we need to plan this carefully. Chris
Halse-Rogers and I have devised the following plan:
* Push all new packages (Xorg and packages that need changes) to
ppa:canonical-x/x-staging, inclu
On 01/07/2012 09:09 AM, Tormod Volden wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Chase Douglas
> wrote:
>> On 01/06/2012 06:05 PM, Chase Douglas wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I tried to track down the bug in the X staging ppa
>>> (ppa:ubuntu-x-swat/x-st
On 01/06/2012 06:05 PM, Chase Douglas wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I tried to track down the bug in the X staging ppa
> (ppa:ubuntu-x-swat/x-staging) that causes trackpads to flip to the edge
> of the screen. This is what I found:
>
> In the X server when there's a relative m
Hi all,
I tried to track down the bug in the X staging ppa
(ppa:ubuntu-x-swat/x-staging) that causes trackpads to flip to the edge
of the screen. This is what I found:
In the X server when there's a relative motion event it computes an
acceleration for it. You can follow the events from QueuePoin
Hi all,
At UDS we decided to use the X.org 1.11 server with the input subsystem
backported from 1.12 for multitouch. The upstream 1.12 server
development branch just landed the multitouch support, so I packaged it
up for Precise.
Ubuntu has had multitouch support in our X server since 11.04, but
* lp:~sergio91pt/ubuntu/oneiric/gvfs/bug-388904
- Bug #388904: Nautilus 'Computer' displays redundant labels
- Patch looks ok
- Needs to be forward ported from Natty to Oneiric
- Needs to be converted to a packaging quilt patch
- Was blocked on lp:ubuntu/gvfs getting updated to latest upl
On 08/04/2011 08:52 AM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Chase Douglas
> wrote:
>> Realistically, you also can't expect that if you are on a publicly
>> elected board that evaluates individuals that there will not be
>> disagreements. It i
On 08/04/2011 08:09 AM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Marc Cluet wrote:
>> Amongst those projects are Orchestra and Ensemble, both are mainly driven by
>> Canonical but are Ubuntu projects, as emerging projects they do need some
>> time to catch the community interes
On 08/03/2011 02:01 PM, Chase Douglas wrote:
> On 08/03/2011 01:45 PM, Stéphane Graber wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA512
>>
>> On 08/03/2011 04:36 PM, Chase Douglas wrote:
>>> On 08/03/2011 12:50 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
>>>
On 08/03/2011 02:05 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 04:06:26 PM Chase Douglas wrote:
>> On 08/03/2011 12:44 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 03:04:14 PM Chase Douglas wrote:
>>>> On 08/02/2011 09:33 AM, Chase D
On 08/03/2011 01:45 PM, Stéphane Graber wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 08/03/2011 04:36 PM, Chase Douglas wrote:
>> On 08/03/2011 12:50 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
>>> On 08/03/2011 12:23 PM, Chase Douglas wrote:
>>>> On 08/0
On 08/03/2011 12:50 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
> On 08/03/2011 12:23 PM, Chase Douglas wrote:
>> On 08/03/2011 12:14 PM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Chase Douglas
>>> wrote:
>>>> What is the policy for email applications? C
On 08/03/2011 12:44 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 03:04:14 PM Chase Douglas wrote:
>> On 08/02/2011 09:33 AM, Chase Douglas wrote:
>>> My proposal would be to do away with formal meetings, at least for
>>> evaluating typical applications,
On 08/03/2011 12:35 PM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Scott Moser wrote:
>> At very least, this issue needs to be fixed. Meetings need to happen at
>> scheduled times, or be postponed/rescheduled at least 24 hours in advance.
>
> Believe I already said this, but...
>
On 08/03/2011 12:30 PM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Chase Douglas
> wrote:
>> On 08/03/2011 12:14 PM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Chase Douglas
>>> wrote:
>>>> What is the policy for email a
On 08/03/2011 12:14 PM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Chase Douglas
> wrote:
>> What is the policy for email applications? Can anyone apply this way, or
>> is it only under specific circumstances?
>
> Split votes go to the mailing list to try
On 08/03/2011 11:43 AM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Chase Douglas
> wrote:
>> I don't think the DMB process is an important piece of community
>> socialization at all. I doubt many people pay attention to it if they
>> don't have
On 08/02/2011 09:33 AM, Chase Douglas wrote:
> My proposal would be to do away with formal meetings, at least for
> evaluating typical applications, and move them to Launchpad. Create a
> project (maybe "ubuntu-developer-membership") and then have people open
> bugs when
On 08/03/2011 09:18 AM, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> hi,
> Am Dienstag, den 02.08.2011, 09:33 -0700 schrieb Chase Douglas:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Yesterday I attempted to attend a DMB meeting, but unfortunately only
>> two members showed so there wasn't a quorum. I think I&
On 08/02/2011 06:46 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 02, 2011 04:04:31 PM Chase Douglas wrote:
>> On 08/02/2011 12:43 PM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Bryce Harrington
> wrote:
>>>> Sounds like a good idea to me
On 08/02/2011 01:26 PM, Brad Figg wrote:
> On 08/02/2011 01:12 PM, Dan Chen wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 16:04, Chase Douglas
>> wrote:
>>> True, but progress sometimes means change. I think this system would
>>> work better, and if proven right it cou
On 08/02/2011 01:12 PM, Dan Chen wrote:
> The only thing I add is that we should be cognizant of building a
> timeout into the process using Launchpad so that applications don't
> "spin indefinitely," e.g., "the stale five-digit Launchpad bug
> report."
Launchpad can auto-expire bug reports that r
On 08/02/2011 12:43 PM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
>> Sounds like a good idea to me. It makes it analogous to other processes
>> such as the sponsorship, MIR, SRU, etc. processes that applicants may
>> already be familiar with.
>
> And drast
On 07/29/2011 11:24 AM, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
> Hola,
>
> On Fri, July 29, 2011 11:01 am, Michael Bienia wrote:
>> This leads to the next question: how much do you trust the person
>> writing the endorsement?
>>
>> Of course I trust endorsements from long-standing dev members with a
>> great reput
re's an
example of a bug I would create for this:
---
Affects: ubuntu-developer-membership
Status: New
Importance: Medium
Assigned to: Unassigned
Description:
I, Chase Douglas, am applying for Ubuntu Core Dev upload rights.
---
Endorsements can be added as bug comments. Since Launchp
On 07/27/2011 03:59 PM, Iain Lane wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 03:04:49PM -0700, Chase Douglas wrote:
>> [...]
>> (Note: I don't want to get into specific cases, but the following is an
>> issue that I imagine is fairly unique. I've used my ow
On 07/27/2011 01:08 PM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Chase Douglas
> wrote:
>> However, I'm not quite sure on what the policy is for upload rights. The
>> issue I see is that the upload rights seem to be based on an intangible
>> "
On 07/27/2011 11:47 AM, Michael Bienia wrote:
> On 2011-07-26 15:53:09 -0500, Dustin Kirkland wrote:
>> - The pressing need for some standards for what counts as "enough".
>> I've long been frustrated with the fuzzy, moving targets we have for
>> membership and privileges in Ubuntu, and I think we
On 07/21/2011 03:52 PM, Iain Lane wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 04:11:16PM -0400, Jorge O. Castro wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I am confused as to the definition of the different levels of Ubuntu
>> Developers and how that relates to membership in each of the various
>> teams (though probably in
On 07/21/2011 11:48 AM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Chase Douglas
> wrote:
>> On 07/21/2011 11:17 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> All of that is equally true for any upstream work. Should all postgresql
>>> developers be Ubuntu me
On 07/21/2011 12:05 PM, Iain Lane wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:40:44AM -0700, Chase Douglas wrote:
>> The point is that I believe there are cases where it makes sense to
>> bestow Ubuntu membership on upstream-only individuals. When we create
>> and enforce policy, we
On 07/21/2011 12:32 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I disagree that a pure upstream membership path is appropriate. It's been a
> long held project value that "Because you work for Canonical" doesn't get you
> special treatment in the project (either better or worse). Treating
> Canonical
> spon
On 07/21/2011 11:17 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Thursday, July 21, 2011 01:09:46 PM Chase Douglas wrote:
>> On 07/20/2011 04:02 PM, Iain Lane wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 06:16:45PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, July 20, 2011 05:4
On 07/20/2011 04:02 PM, Iain Lane wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 06:16:45PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 20, 2011 05:43:23 PM Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
>>> [...] And then I guess you could add "should
>>> Canonical-sponsored upstream projects be treated differently than
>>> o
On 11/03/2010 03:16 PM, Peter Hendriks wrote:
> Hi,
>
> would it be possible to enhance the touchpad properties/settings with an
> option for the two-finger scrolling to reverse up and down.
>
> The reason is that when you frequently use iPod Touch and the like, the
> touchscreen or touchpad is u
55 matches
Mail list logo
