On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Ted Gould 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 current
On Thu, 2014-03-06 at 13:02 -0300, Alejandro J. Cura wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Ted Gould 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 U
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Barry Warsaw 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. It's a s
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 1:12 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Mar 06, 2014, at 01:21 PM, Alejandro J. Cura wrote:
>
>> * and it needs to do *something* when a given download has finished (or
>> failed)
>
> With system-image-dbus, that *something* is "send a 'finished' signal" over
> D-Bus. That works
On Mar 06, 2014, at 01:21 PM, Alejandro J. Cura wrote:
> * and it needs to do *something* when a given download has finished (or
> failed)
With system-image-dbus, that *something* is "send a 'finished' signal" over
D-Bus. That works for s-i because it stays alive and can respond to that
request
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Ted Gould 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 in the UR
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Manuel de la Pena
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Barry Warsaw 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 do
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Barry Warsaw 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 by the sc
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 p
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Barry Warsaw 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.
>
The good news i
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
> 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
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Manuel de la Pena
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 approach and let udm do one
> onl
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
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
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 19:49, "Barry Warsaw" wrote:
>
> On Mar 01, 2014, at 03:35 PM, Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> >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 pl
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
On Mar 01, 2014, at 03:35 PM, Roberto Alsina wrote:
>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 :-(
Seve
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 wrote:
> On Ma
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 fixi
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 th
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Manuel de la Pena
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Manuel de la Pena
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Alan Pope wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Image #213 (and subsequent image #214) have a broken
>>> ubuntu-download-manager). This
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 wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Image #213 (and subsequent
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 wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Image #213 (and subsequent image #214) have a broken
>> ubuntu-download-manager). This will prevent (amongst other things)
>> being abl
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Alan Pope 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:-
>
>
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-
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
27 matches
Mail list logo
