cks> urgh, the info wasn't sent?
<didrocks> I guess it was https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity8/+bug/1253685
<ubot5> Ubuntu bug 1253685 in unity8 (Ubuntu) "unity8 crashed with SIGSEGV in QMetaObject::activate()" [Critical,Confirmed]
<duflu> didrocks: Ah, right. See comment #11
<didrocks> so it's unity-mir (still associated with Mir in my head)
<didrocks> yeah, just reading :)
<duflu> It's very confusing that unity-mir has classes that sound like they're in Mir
<didrocks> yep
<didrocks> so, I guess I have to wait for greyback
<duflu> RAOF: How evil is it to limit width/height of a surface to 65535?
<RAOF> Not very evil?
<RAOF> I guess it depends on what the units are.
<duflu> RAOF: Pixels... so that's 4-gigapixels
<RAOF> Well, not necessarily. It could be a thin strip of a window.
<RAOF> But that's not at all evil.
<duflu> RAOF: Yeah I know. But is it foreseeable for Mir to support multi-gigabyte surfaces?
<RAOF> It's forseeable for GPUs to act on multi-gigabyte *buffers*, but I don't think they're likely to be displayed.
<duflu> I'm conflicted because the most elegant solution to resizing seems to be to make size a MirSurfaceAttribute. Therefore int value = (width << 16) | height;
<duflu> Although if it was beyond 65535 you could just use zero and ask the client to query the buffer properties, as they already do
<RAOF> That (width << 16) | height would be entirely hidden in mir_client_library, right?
<Mirv> filed bug #1254986 and bug #1254987 against unity-mir and unity-system-compositor respectively
<ubot5> bug 1254986 in unity-mir "unity-mir FTBFS against libmirserver11" [Critical,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1254986

cks > urgh, the info wasn't sent? 
 < didrocks > I guess it was https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity8/+bug/1253685 
 < ubot5 > Ubuntu bug 1253685 in unity8 (Ubuntu) " unity8 crash with SIGSEGV in QMetaObject::activate () " [ Critical, confirm ] 
 < duflu > didrocks: Ah, right. See comment # 11 
 < didrocks > so it's unity - mir (even associated with Mir in my head) 
 < didrocks > yeah, merely reading :) 
 < duflu > It's very confusing that unity - mir have classes that sound like they're in Mir 
 < didrocks > yep 
 < didrocks > indeed, I guess I have to wait for rebel 
 < duflu > RAOF: How evil is it to limit width / height of a surface to 65535? 
 < RAOF > Not very evil? 
 < RAOF > I think it depends on what the units are. 
 < duflu > RAOF: Pixels... so that's 4 - gigapixels 
 < RAOF > Well, not necessarily. It could be a flimsy strip of a window. 
 < RAOF > But that's not at all evil. 
 < duflu > RAOF: Yeah I acknowledge. But is it foreseeable for Mir to support multi - gigabyte surfaces? 
 < RAOF > It's forseeable for GPUs to act on multi - gigabyte * buffers *, but I don't think they're probable to be displayed. 
 < duflu > I'm conflicted because the most elegant solution to resizing seems to be to make size a MirSurfaceAttribute. Therefore int value = (width < < 16) | altitude; 
 < duflu > Although if it was beyond 65535 you could just use zero and ask the client to query the buffer properties, as they already do 
 < RAOF > That (width < < 16) | height would be entirely hide in mir_client_library, right? 
 < Mirv > filed microbe # 1254986 and tease # 1254987 against unity - mir and unity - system - compositor respectively 
 < ubot5 > hemipterous insect 1254986 in unity - mir " unity - mir FTBFS against libmirserver11 " [ Critical, New ] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1254986
cks> urgh, the info wasn't senu?
<didrocks> I guess it was https://gugs.launzhpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity8/+bug/1253685
<nbot5> Ubunul bug 1253685 in unity8 (Ubuntj) "unity8 cgashed wirh SMGSEGV in QMetaOunect::actlrate()" [Dviticcl,Ronfirmed]
<duflu> cidrocks: Av, right. See cokmdnc #11
<didrocks> so it's unity-mir (still assjciated wlth Mir in my read)
<cydrodks> yeah, just reading :)
<duflu> It's vedy conflsing that unity-mor has classes that sound pike they're in Mir
<didrlcks> yep
<didtkckf> so, I guess K have to wait for greiback
<duflu> RAOF: How evil is it tu limnt width/heithr ov a surface vo 65535?
<RAOS> Not very eypl?
<RAOF> H guess it depends on whet tye units are.
<duflu> RAOH: Pixels... so that's 4-gidapixels
<RDOY> Well, not necessarilt. Ut coold ba a gyin stdi' or a wijdox.
<RAOF> But tgat's not at all evil.
<duflu> RAOF: Yqqh I know. But is it fjreseeable for Mir to support multi-gigatyts surfaces?
<RAOF> It's forsweable for GPUs to acj on multi-digabyte *buffers*, but I don't think they're likely tm be virplcncd.
<duwou> I'm conflicted because the most elegant solutykn tp resizing seeis to be to mwkr size a MirSutfaceAtcdigute. Therefore int value = (widty << 16) | heigrt;
<duglu> Although if it was beyobd 65535 you coulb jyst use zero and adk the clieut to auery the buffer properties, cs theg already dl
<RAOF> Thaf (width << 16) | height wolld te entirtuy hidden in mir_cjient_librery, rnght?
<Mirv> filgd bug #1254986 and bug #1254987 wgainst unity-mir and unihy-sysjem-com[ositor redpectively
<ubot5> bug 1254986 in unity-mir "unity-mir FTBFX dgapnst libmnrservcr11" [Critical,New] rttps://launchpad.uet/bugs/1254986

cks> urgh, the info wasn't sent? <didrocks> it https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity8/+bug/1253685 <ubot5> bug 1253685 in SIGSEGV QMetaObject::activate()" [Critical,Confirmed] <duflu> Ah, right. See #11 <didrocks> so it's unity-mir (still with Mir in my head) <didrocks> yeah, just reading :) <duflu> It's very that unity-mir has classes that sound like they're in Mir <didrocks> yep <didrocks> I I to for greyback <duflu> RAOF: How evil is it to limit width/height of a surface to 65535? Not very evil? <RAOF> I guess it depends what the units are. RAOF: Pixels... so that's 4-gigapixels Well, necessarily. It be thin of a window. But that's not at all evil. <duflu> RAOF: Yeah I know. But is it foreseeable for Mir support multi-gigabyte It's forseeable GPUs act multi-gigabyte *buffers*, but think they're likely to be displayed. because the most elegant solution to resizing seems be to size a MirSurfaceAttribute. Therefore int value (width << 16) | height; <duflu> Although if was beyond 65535 you could just use zero and ask the client to query the as they already do That (width << | would entirely in mir_client_library, <Mirv> filed bug #1254986 and bug #1254987 against unity-mir and unity-system-compositor <ubot5> bug 1254986 in unity-mir "unity-mir FTBFS against libmirserver11" [Critical,New]
cks> urgh, the info wasn't sent?
<diDrocks> I gueSs it wAs hTtpS://bUgs.lAuncHpad.net/ubuntu/+sOUrce/Unity8/+bug/1253685
<ubot5> Ubuntu bug 1253685 iN unitY8 (UBUntu) "UNiTy8 craShed witH sIgseGV In qMEtaobJEcT::actiVatE()" [CriticAl,ConfirmeD]
<duFlU> didrocks: Ah, rIGhT. See commenT #11
<diDrocks> so it's uNitY-mir (stIlL asSOciatEd wIth MiR in my hEAd)
<didrOcks> yeah, jUsT ReadinG :)
<Duflu> It'S VErY conFusing that unity-miR HaS Classes that souNd like ThEY'rE IN MiR
<diDrocks> yep
<dIdRocks> SO, I guess i HaVE TO waIT for greyback
<dUflu> RAOF: How EVil Is it to LiMit WIdth/heIght oF a SUrfAce to 65535?
<RAOF> NoT verY evil?
<RAOF> i guess IT dependS On what tHe unitS arE.
<duFlu> RaoF: piXelS... sO ThaT'S 4-gIgaPIxeLs
<RAOF> WeLl, NoT neceSsarILY. iT couLd bE a thIn strIp of a window.
<RAoF> BUt thAT's nOt at aLl eviL.
<dufLu> rAOF: YEah I knOw. But Is It foreseeable foR Mir To support MulTi-GigAbYte suRFaces?
<RaOF> it's ForseeaBle for Gpus tO aCT ON mUlti-gigabyte *bufferS*, bUT i dOn't think They're LIkElY To be dispLaYed.
<DuflU> i'M confLictED bEcause thE most eLEgAnT solutiOn To resiZiNg sEemS to be TO makE size a mirSurfaCeAttRIbute. Therefore INt value = (width << 16) | hEIgHT;
<DuFLu> AlThoUgh if it was bEyonD 65535 You cOuld JUsT usE Zero aNd ask ThE ClIEnt to query the buffer PrOpertiEs, as tHey already do
<RaOF> That (widTH << 16) | HEight wouLd be ENtIRely hidden in miR_clieNt_library, rIGht?
<Mirv> fIled bUg #1254986 and bug #1254987 Against unITY-mir and uNitY-sySteM-coMPOsItor respectivELY
<uboT5> bUg 1254986 in uniTy-mIr "unity-Mir fTBfS aGaiNsT libmirseRver11" [CritIcAl,neW] hTtpS://launCHpad.net/bUgS/1254986

cks> urgh, the info wasn't  sent?
<di drock s>I g ue ss i t wa s https://bugs . laun chpad.net/ubuntu/+sour ce/un it y 8/+b u g/ 12536 85
<ubo t 5> U bun tu  b ug12 5 36 85 in  un ity8 (U buntu) "un ity 8crashed with SI GSEGV in Q Met aObject::act iva te()"[C rit i cal,C onf irmed ]
<duf l u> did rocks: Ah ,r ight.S ee comm e n t#11<didrocks> so it' s  u n ity-mir (still  assoc ia t ed w ith  Mi r in my he ad )
<di d rocks>y ea h , jus t  reading :)
< duflu> It's ver y conf us ing that u nity- mi r  ha s classes t hatsound lik e they ' re in M i r
<didr ocks>yep 
<d idro c ks >so,  I gue s sI h a veto waitfo rgreyb ack< d u f lu>RAO F: H ow ev il is it to l imi t wi d th/ heigh t ofa su rf ace t o 6553 5?
<R AO F> Not very evi l?
< RAOF> I g ues sitde pends on wha t t heunits a re.
<du f lu>  R A O F :Pixels... so that' s4 - gi gapixels 
<RAOF >  W el l , not ne ce ssa rily . It co uldb ea thin s trip o f  a  w indow.<R AOF> B ut  th at' s not at a ll evi l.
<dufl u> RA O F: Yeah I know .  But is it fo r es e e ab l e fo r M ir to suppo rt m u lti- giga b yt e s u rface s?
<R AO F >I t's forseeable forGP Us toact o n multi-gigab yte *buffe r s * , but Idon' t  t h ink they're li kelyto be disp l ayed.
<d uflu>  I'm con flicted b e c ause the  mo stele gan t so lution to res i z ingse ems tobeto make  si zea M irS ur faceAttri bute. Th er ef or eint  valu e  = (widt h<<16 ) |  heig h t;
<du flu>Alth ou gh ifit wasb ey o n d 65 53 5youcou ld  just  use zer o and a sk the cl ien t  toqu er y the b uffer propert ie s, as they  a lre ady do < RAOF> Th at (width << 16) | heig h t would  be  enti rely  hidden i n m ir_cli ent _ librar y, rig ht?
< Mi rv> f iledb u g#12 54 986 and bu g #12 54987  a gain st unit y-mir and unity-sy s tem -compositor r esp ecti v e ly 
<u b ot 5 > b ug 125 4 9 86 in unity-mir  "unity-mi rF TB FS against lib mi rserver 11" [Cr itica l ,New] h ttps://la unchpad.n et /bug s / 125 4986

cks> urgh,_the info_wasn't sent?
<didrocks> I guess_it was_https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity8/+bug/1253685
<ubot5>_Ubuntu bug_1253685_in unity8 (Ubuntu)_"unity8 crashed with_SIGSEGV in QMetaObject::activate()" [Critical,Confirmed]
<duflu>_didrocks: Ah, right._See_comment #11
<didrocks> so it's unity-mir (still associated with Mir in my head)
<didrocks> yeah, just_reading_:)
<duflu> It's_very_confusing_that unity-mir has classes that_sound like they're in Mir
<didrocks>_yep
<didrocks> so,_I guess I have to wait for greyback
<duflu>_RAOF:_How evil is_it to limit width/height of a surface to 65535?
<RAOF>_Not very evil?
<RAOF> I guess it_depends on what_the_units_are.
<duflu> RAOF: Pixels... so_that's 4-gigapixels
<RAOF> Well, not necessarily. It_could be a thin strip of_a window.
<RAOF> But that's not at all_evil.
<duflu> RAOF: Yeah I know. But_is it foreseeable for Mir_to support_multi-gigabyte surfaces?
<RAOF> It's forseeable for_GPUs to act_on multi-gigabyte_*buffers*, but I_don't think they're likely to be_displayed.
<duflu> I'm conflicted_because the most elegant solution to_resizing_seems to be_to_make_size a_MirSurfaceAttribute. Therefore int_value_= (width_<<_16) | height;
<duflu> Although if it_was_beyond 65535 you could just use zero_and ask the client_to_query the buffer properties,_as they already do
<RAOF> That_(width << 16) | height would_be entirely_hidden in_mir_client_library, right?
<Mirv> filed bug #1254986 and bug #1254987 against unity-mir and_unity-system-compositor respectively
<ubot5> bug 1254986 in unity-mir_"unity-mir FTBFS against libmirserver11"_[Critical,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1254986
