650852 - Add a COMM_2_0_BASE tag to comm-central (and comm-2.0)

Status: VERIFIED FIXED

(MailNews Core :: Build Config, defect)

Description

[Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)]

Just like COMM_1_9_2_BASE and COMM_1_9_1_BASE tags.

Comment 1

[Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)]

Per bug 649855 comment 3, I used
{
hg tag -r c4fd9ad67939 -m "Add COMM_2_0_BASE tag. rs+a=Callek." COMM_2_0_BASE
}

http://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/faabc407697b
"Add COMM_2_0_BASE tag. rs+a=Callek."
http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/comm-2.0/rev/7184b441d560
"Add COMM_2_0_BASE tag. rs+a=Callek."

NB: Callek emailed me to do it.

Comment 2

[Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)]

PS: I obviously missed to add bug number and I could have added a DONTBUILD too :-|

Comment 3

[Justin Wood (:Callek)]

(In reply to comment #1)
> NB: Callek emailed me to do it.

Of course, in my e-mail I asked you to tag c-c then push all those csets to c-2.0

I wanted the tag to be the same physical cset across both branches, and since I have [had] the tinderbox trees closed I suspected it would be obvious after what I said in the e-mail.

I'm fixing now. (merging c-2.0 into c-c then re-tagging, then re-pushing)

Comment 4

[Justin Wood (:Callek)]

Ok, pushed properly. Now [shortly] 2.0 is open for business.

Comment 5

[Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)]

(In reply to comment #3)

> I wanted the tag to be the same physical cset across both branches, and since I
> have [had] the tinderbox trees closed I suspected it would be obvious after
> what I said in the e-mail.

Sorry, that obviously wasn't that obvious to me...

As a side note, I think "tagging before cloning" would be less prone to such misunderstanding.

> I'm fixing now. (merging c-2.0 into c-c then re-tagging, then re-pushing)

http://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/pushloghtml?changeset=0490476ab04d
http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/comm-2.0/pushloghtml?changeset=0490476ab04d
merge c-c to+from c-2.0 so all these changesets exist (out of order) in both of them.

V.Fixed