On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Manuel de la Pena
manuel.delap...@canonical.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Barry Warsaw ba...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On Mar 03, 2014, at 02:50 AM, Alejandro J. Cura wrote:
You mention that you don't like the download manager doing the
installation, but
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Ted Gould t...@ubuntu.com wrote:
What we're doing for alarms is having the application provide a URL that
gets called if the user clicks on the notification. So the clock app sets up
an alarm and sets the URL to alarms:///foo/whatever and registers for that
URL
On Mar 06, 2014, at 02:13 PM, Alejandro J. Cura wrote:
So, while the updates are downloading, how is s-i kept alive if the
user switches to other apps? Is it somehow escaping the app lifecycle?
Yes, because s-i isn't an app. It's a system bus service itself which is
invoked by system settings
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Barry Warsaw ba...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On Mar 06, 2014, at 02:13 PM, Alejandro J. Cura wrote:
So, while the updates are downloading, how is s-i kept alive if the
user switches to other apps? Is it somehow escaping the app lifecycle?
Yes, because s-i isn't an app.
On Thu, 2014-03-06 at 13:02 -0300, Alejandro J. Cura wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Ted Gould t...@ubuntu.com wrote:
What we're doing for alarms is having the application provide a URL that
gets called if the user clicks on the notification. So the clock app sets up
an alarm and
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Ted Gould t...@ubuntu.com wrote:
The question is whether the end result is the click is installed or the
user is told that it's downloaded, and then can choose to install it. And
that is a design question, where I haven't seen the design.
The end result with the
On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 02:50 -0300, Alejandro J. Cura wrote:
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Manuel de la Pena
manuel.delap...@canonical.com wrote:
I don't like the fact that udm is dooimd the click package installations but
it is done because there is no guarantee that the scope will be
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Barry Warsaw ba...@ubuntu.com wrote:
Several of us also had good discussions yesterday about getting the whole
stack QA and automatically tested. That's a huge step toward ensuring no
regressions. Let's make sure that click updates are also on that plan.
On Mar 03, 2014, at 02:50 AM, Alejandro J. Cura wrote:
You mention that you don't like the download manager doing the
installation, but to put it more strictly: the download manager is
actually just running a command given by the scope when a given
download is completed. And the installation
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Barry Warsaw ba...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On Mar 03, 2014, at 02:50 AM, Alejandro J. Cura wrote:
You mention that you don't like the download manager doing the
installation, but to put it more strictly: the download manager is
actually just running a command given
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Manuel de la Pena
manuel.delap...@canonical.com wrote:
I don't like the fact that udm is dooimd the click package installations but
it is done because there is no guarantee that the scope will be around to
deal with the download. We should think a better
Hi,
Image #213 (and subsequent image #214) have a broken
ubuntu-download-manager). This will prevent (amongst other things)
being able to install packages from the store. Bug filed:-
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-download-manager/+bug/1286553
If you have already upgraded, you
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Alan Pope alan.p...@canonical.com wrote:
Hi,
Image #213 (and subsequent image #214) have a broken
ubuntu-download-manager). This will prevent (amongst other things)
being able to install packages from the store. Bug filed:-
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Manuel de la Pena
manuel.delap...@canonical.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Alan Pope alan.p...@canonical.com wrote:
Hi,
Image #213 (and subsequent image #214) have a broken
ubuntu-download-manager). This will prevent (amongst other things)
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Manuel de la Pena
manuel.delap...@canonical.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Manuel de la Pena
manuel.delap...@canonical.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Alan Pope alan.p...@canonical.comwrote:
Hi,
Image #213 (and subsequent
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Manuel de la Pena
manuel.delap...@canonical.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Manuel de la Pena
manuel.delap...@canonical.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Alan Pope alan.p...@canonical.com wrote:
Hi,
Image #213 (and subsequent image
Hi,
I wonder then why the silo was marked as 'Tested: Yes' if the basic
testplan wasn't completed? It was also my fault for letting it through
and I'm really pissed about that. Apologies here.
Manuel - could you add a landing for this branch? I'll take care of it,
test it and release it during
On Mar 01, 2014, at 06:54 PM, Łukasz 'sil2100' Zemczak wrote:
I wonder then why the silo was marked as 'Tested: Yes' if the basic
testplan wasn't completed? It was also my fault for letting it through
and I'm really pissed about that. Apologies here.
My guess is that we were so focused on fixing
There was also a lack of thorough verification on my side as one of the
landers: I asked did you guys check this because I could not. I did not
ask did you guys follow the whole test plan?
So, a learning opportunity all around :-(
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Barry Warsaw ba...@ubuntu.com
On 1 Mar 2014 20:54, Łukasz 'sil2100' Zemczak
lukasz.zemc...@canonical.com wrote:
Hi everyone,
So, I went in and did a priority landing of the fix. Alan helped me out
testing the whole test plan and we decided to land it. Reverting was a
bad idea since the silo had a few different
Hi everyone,
So, I went in and did a priority landing of the fix. Alan helped me out
testing the whole test plan and we decided to land it. Reverting was a
bad idea since the silo had a few different components in it, so it was
more straightforward this way. Hopefully the next image will be fine.
On 1 Mar 2014 18:54, Łukasz 'sil2100' Zemczak
lukasz.zemc...@canonical.com wrote:
Hi,
I wonder then why the silo was marked as 'Tested: Yes' if the basic
testplan wasn't completed? It was also my fault for letting it through
and I'm really pissed about that. Apologies here.
No big deal, we
hi,
Am Samstag, den 01.03.2014, 20:53 +0100 schrieb Łukasz 'sil2100'
Zemczak:
Hi everyone,
So, I went in and did a priority landing of the fix. Alan helped me out
testing the whole test plan and we decided to land it. Reverting was a
bad idea since the silo had a few different components in
23 matches
Mail list logo
