537314 - Use different version numbers for Fennec built against different branches

Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX

(Firefox for Android Graveyard :: General, defect)

Description

[Chris Cooper [:coop] (he/him)]

Versions of Fennec built against mozilla-central and mozilla-1.9.2 have the same version number. This will make it impossible to provide updates for both branches since we cannot distinguish between them in AUS.

Not sure about the best way to fix this:
* new mobile-1.9.2 repo
* merge mobile-browser into mozilla-central
* ???

Comment 1

[Mark Finkle (:mfinkle) (use needinfo?)]

Will releases of Fennec built from 1.9.2 and mozilla-central have the same version numbers? I would think that a release of Fennec built from 1.9.2 would have a different version number than a release from mozilla-central.

I guess my point is: will we need to upgrade a Fennec 1.xx release built from two or more branches of mozilla? I suspect any given release of Fennec will be built against exactly one branch. Fennec 1.0 (release) is being built from mozilla-1.9.2, not from mozilla-central

Comment 2

[:Gavin Sharp [email: [e-mail]]]

(In reply to comment #0)
> * merge mobile-browser into mozilla-central

I think this is actually my preferred solution - though I suspect it might be unpopular with other mobile devs. Having a separate repo is nice because it's small (quicker to clone, etc.), but I think that's about the only real advantage...

(In reply to comment #1)
> I guess my point is: will we need to upgrade a Fennec 1.xx release built from
> two or more branches of mozilla? I suspect any given release of Fennec will be
> built against exactly one branch. Fennec 1.0 (release) is being built from
> mozilla-1.9.2, not from mozilla-central

That's not true - we're building m-c builds with m-b trunk to test get trunk xulrunner coverage. We don't plan to ship that, sure, but it's mighty confusing to have Fennec builds with the same frontend code but different xulrunner code have the same version numbers, which, AIUI, is what this bug is about.

Comment 3

[Stuart Parmenter]

it seems like we need AUS to support 2 versions, one for the app and one for the platform, along with using GUIDs for the app name, rather than a name ("firefox") which is already going to conflict.

Comment 4

[John O'Duinn [:joduinn] (please use "needinfo?" flag)]

(In reply to comment #3)
> it seems like we need AUS to support 2 versions, one for the app and one for
> the platform, along with using GUIDs for the app name, rather than a name
> ("firefox") which is already going to conflict.

So, we should generate WinMO updates and urls with the assumption that AUS is changed to support GUIDs? (AUS work in bug#540007 is currently marked blocking)

Comment 5

[BMO Automation]

Closing all opened bug in a graveyard component