551015 - Update hg.mozilla.org to Mercurial 1.5.4

Status: VERIFIED FIXED

(mozilla.org Graveyard :: Server Operations, task)

Description

[(not currently active) Ted Mielczarek]

Currently we're on hg 1.2 or something very old. Hg 1.5 was just released, we should at least get to 1.4.something so we're not on an ancient version. I tested our hooks+extensions+templates in bug 511305 and everything seems to work fine (and passes all the unit tests).

Comment 1

[Aravind Gottipati [:aravind]]

I am building a new backend server to help with load issues on the vcview boxes, I will roll this update out as a part of that.

Comment 2

[Aravind Gottipati [:aravind]]

Ted, the hg staging environment should now be up (551520), let me know if you need any more information from me to test 1.4 on that environment.

Comment 3

[(not currently active) Ted Mielczarek]

Sounds good, I'll try to find the time to look at this next week. If you want to assign this to me in the interim feel free.

Comment 4

[Aravind Gottipati [:aravind]]

@ted: please toss the bug back to our bucket when you are ready.

Comment 5

[Aravind Gottipati [:aravind]]

Hey Ted, I think I have it all sorted out.. hgstage.m.o is now running 

[root@dm-vcstage01 templates]# hg version
Mercurial Distributed SCM (version 1.5.3+22-24fe2629c6fd)

Give it a little testing and we should be on our way to the upgrade.

Comment 6

[Dirkjan Ochtman (:djc)]

Are you running a patched Mercurial here? Why is the version not 1.5.4?

Comment 7

[(not currently active) Ted Mielczarek]

The styling on /annotate/ looks busted:
http://hgstage.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/annotate/78d11f8b9cae/Makefile.in

Are you using the right templates there? The CSS file doesn't seem to match the one in our hg_templates repo:
http://hgstage.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/static/style-gitweb.css
http://hg.mozilla.org/hg_templates/file/173c563d1cb9/static/style-gitweb.css

Comment 8

[Aravind Gottipati [:aravind]]

(In reply to comment #6)
> Are you running a patched Mercurial here? Why is the version not 1.5.4?

I built the rpm using the sources.  The sources have contrib/buildrpm thingy which insist of finding a .hg tree, so I actually checked stuff out from source.  The rev corresponding to 1.5.4 in http://selenic.com/repo/hg/tags is 24fe2629c6fd.

If I did that wrong, let me know.. its pretty trivial to build a new rpm.

Comment 9

[Aravind Gottipati [:aravind]]

(In reply to comment #7)
> The styling on /annotate/ looks busted:

Should be fixed now, can you take a look?

> Are you using the right templates there? The CSS file doesn't seem to match the
> one in our hg_templates repo:

I was using a mish-mash of templates, now I am using ours for sure.

Comment 10

[Dirkjan Ochtman (:djc)]

(In reply to comment #8)
> I built the rpm using the sources.  The sources have contrib/buildrpm thingy
> which insist of finding a .hg tree, so I actually checked stuff out from
> source.  The rev corresponding to 1.5.4 in http://selenic.com/repo/hg/tags is
> 24fe2629c6fd.

That's weird... How did you do the clone/checkout? If you did hg clone -r1.5.4, I guess that explains it. Can you do hg clone, then hg up 1.5.4, and build the rpm from that?

Comment 11

[(not currently active) Ted Mielczarek]

Ok, I poked around a bunch and everything looks ok to me.

Comment 12

[Aravind Gottipati [:aravind]]

(In reply to comment #10)
> That's weird... How did you do the clone/checkout? If you did hg clone -r1.5.4,
> I guess that explains it. Can you do hg clone, then hg up 1.5.4, and build the
> rpm from that?

I had originally pulled stuff like this, hg clone -r 24fe2629c6fd

I followed your suggestion and now the build says this.

[root@dm-vcstage01 mercurial]# hg version
Mercurial Distributed SCM (version 1.5.4)


@Ted: look over it one more time?  and I will schedule the upgrade.

Comment 13

[(not currently active) Ted Mielczarek]

Looks good.

Comment 14

[Aravind Gottipati [:aravind]]

I think this is ready to push to production.  Will try to schedule this around tomorrow nights build (tinderbox) outage.

Comment 15

[Aravind Gottipati [:aravind]]

We should now be running 1.5.4 across the board.  Please re-open/comment here if you notice any problems.

Comment 16

[Aravind Gottipati [:aravind]]

Looks like the upgrade broke a few things.


The following need to be fixed for us to be fully functional again.

573264, 573265, 573250 and 573270

Comment 17

[Dave Townsend [:mossop]]

bug 573274 is another regression

Comment 18

[Dirkjan Ochtman (:djc)]

Bug 573270 and 573274 are probably due to not updating the templates correctly.

Comment 19

[Kyle Huey (Exited; not receiving bugmail, old account, do not use)]

It appears that since this happened pushes are not triggering builds on 1.9.2 ...

Comment 20

[John Ford [:jhford] CET/CEST Berlin Time]

(In reply to comment #19)
> It appears that since this happened pushes are not triggering builds on 1.9.2
> ...

This is because the pushlog isn't inserting the HG host into the URL in the rss feed, which is important.

Comment 21

[Aravind Gottipati [:aravind]]

Okay, is it time to consider a rollback to 1.2 across the board?  Or are we doing okay (w.r.t builds etc) and can hang on for folks to fix these issues?

Comment 22

[John Ford [:jhford] CET/CEST Berlin Time]

(In reply to comment #21)
> Okay, is it time to consider a rollback to 1.2 across the board?  Or are we
> doing okay (w.r.t builds etc) and can hang on for folks to fix these issues?

If we can get someone to push a dummy changeset to mozilla-1.9.2 we can test the changes made to buildbot.  If buildbot picks up the change and kicks off the right builds, I am pretty sure we can live with it.

Comment 23

[Kyle Huey (Exited; not receiving bugmail, old account, do not use)]

As long as the trees are building and running tests I think we can live with the incidental annoyances until they can be fixed.

Comment 24

[Aravind Gottipati [:aravind]]

All done.