Closed Bug 1022454 Opened 10 years ago Closed 10 years ago

Update platform/bootable/recovery in tarako manifest

Categories

(Firefox OS Graveyard :: GonkIntegration, defect)

Product:
Firefox OS Graveyard
Component:
GonkIntegration
Platform:
ARM
Gonk (Firefox OS)
Type:
defect
Priority:
Not set
Severity:
major

Tracking

(blocking-b2g:1.3T+, b2g-v1.3T fixed, b2g-v1.4 wontfix, b2g-v2.0 fixed)

Status:
RESOLVED FIXED
Milestone:
2.0 S4 (20june)
Project Flags:
blocking-b2g 1.3T+
Tracking Flags:
Tracking Status
b2g-v1.3T --- fixed
b2g-v1.4 --- wontfix
b2g-v2.0 --- fixed

People

(Reporter: seinlin, Assigned: seinlin)

References

Details

Attachments

(2 files)

PR for master
52 bytes, text/x-github-pull-request
james.zhang
: review+
Details | Review
PR for v1.3t
52 bytes, text/x-github-pull-request
james.zhang
: review+
Details | Review
Partner has a specific branch of platform/bootable/recovery for tarako, need to update platform/bootable/recovery in tarako manifest.
Attached file PR for master —
Michael, can you review this patch? Thanks!
Attachment #8436634 - Flags: review?(mwu)
Attached file PR for v1.3t —
Depends on: 1017735
I think it should block 1.3T, as this update is for Tarako.
blocking-b2g: --- → 1.3T?
I have merge Kaizhen's patch to v1.3t. v1.3t 4a8829a932ffcd22f11f9e2e3b5351f3a0925f85
Assignee: nobody → kli
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
status-b2g-v1.3T: --- → fixed
status-b2g-v1.4: --- → wontfix
status-b2g-v2.0: --- → affected
Comment on attachment 8436634 [details] [review] PR for master Ask James Zhang for review on tarako manifest changes next time.
Attachment #8436634 - Flags: review?(mwu)
Attachment #8436634 - Flags: review+
Attachment #8436636 - Flags: review+
Keywords: checkin-needed
Master: https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/b2g-manifest/commit/423937d151ad93d5d1ee6c37be12b4e8f6c7f79f
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago
status-b2g-v2.0: affected → fixed
Keywords: checkin-needed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → 2.0 S4 (20june)
I'm confused. Should this have landed before it was nom'ed?
Flags: needinfo?(bbajaj)
(In reply to Naoki Hirata :nhirata (please use needinfo instead of cc) from comment #7) > I'm confused. Should this have landed before it was nom'ed? not really, comment #4 broke the rules. James,can you please help understand what happened here as it breaks our general workflow. If we have critical landings to be done on the branch, can we escalate the issue to Steven/Joe so they can act on the blocking flags ?
Flags: needinfo?(bbajaj)
blocking-b2g: 1.3T? → 1.3T+
Steven told us that spreadtrum can land anything on v1.3t. This change is from my side and bug 1017735.
Actually it's all spreadtrum's change.
Well, the problem is that we do need to be notified in the event that this may impact our builds for testing. Changing the 1.3T? to 1.3T+ would help. To note, we locked the recovery to an old revision because it caused a breakage in our builds; see bug 1023353. I am not sure if that is the right fix, our builds work now. Having said that we do not get the new logos.
Flags: needinfo?(james.zhang)
Flags: needinfo?(james.zhang)
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Creator:
Created:
Updated:
Size: