1069754 - Firefox 32.0.2 download link didn't lead me to 32.0.2

Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 1072538

(www.mozilla.org :: Pages & Content, defect)

Description

[Steve Chessin]

User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:32.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/32.0
Build ID: 20140911151253

Steps to reproduce:

I'm running 32.0.1. I got a pop up about 32.0.2 being available, so clicked on "View more information about this update". That took me to
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/32.0.2/releasenotes/
From there I clicked on the "Download" link (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/) and that took me to a page that said "Congrats! You’re using the latest version of Firefox." So I clicked on "Download a fresh copy" (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/) but the Mac version link is
https://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-32.0-SSL&os=osx&lang=en-US
whereas the others are for 32.0.2. For example:
https://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-32.0.2-SSL&os=win&lang=en-US

I downloaded the Mac dmg anyway and opened it and the version on it is 32.0.



Actual results:

It took me to a page that said "Congrats! You’re using the latest version of Firefox."


Expected results:

It should have taken me to a page where I could download 32.0.2.

Comment 1

[Kohei Yoshino [:kohei]]

It's intentional; see Bug 1069545.

Comment 2

[Steve Chessin]

(In reply to Kohei Yoshino [:kohei] from comment #1)
> It's intentional; see Bug 1069545.

Do you know how frustrating/annoying/un-user-friendly that is? The least you could have done was:
1. Not even tell OSX users that there was a new version until after you fixed the white-list problem (have the pop-up formula check what OS the user is using). Alternatively:
2. Have the release notes page say "If you're a MacOS user, we're sorry, 32.0.2 isn't quite ready for you; please come back later."

Also, I'm already at 32.0.1; why did you make it serve 32.0(.0)? You don't want folks to downgrade, do you?

Comment 3

[Paul [:pmac] McLanahan]

We don't. This was a surprise to us as well and we're doing what we can. We figured it would be even more annoying for users to download a version that OS X would refuse to allow them to install and run. The normal upgrade process is for the updated version to be downloaded in the background and installed when you next restart, unless you've turned that feature off. I believe that process has been suspended for OS X as well, but I'm not involved in that area of the project so I can't really speak to it. For our part on the www.mozilla.org team we're just trying to inconvenience the least number of people while Apple works out their approval process. We do sincerely apologize for the inconvenience.

Comment 4

[Jennifer Bertsch [:jbertsch]]

Just fyi cmore, habber, and verdi. Plus lmandel.

Comment 5

[Steve Chessin]

(In reply to Paul McLanahan [:pmac] from comment #3)
> We don't. This was a surprise to us as well and we're doing what we can. We
> figured it would be even more annoying for users to download a version that
> OS X would refuse to allow them to install and run. The normal upgrade
> process is for the updated version to be downloaded in the background and
> installed when you next restart, unless you've turned that feature off. I
> believe that process has been suspended for OS X as well, but I'm not
> involved in that area of the project so I can't really speak to it. For our
> part on the www.mozilla.org team we're just trying to inconvenience the
> least number of people while Apple works out their approval process. We do
> sincerely apologize for the inconvenience.

Paul, I appreciate the update. I know you were concerned about the customer experience (bug 1069545 expresses concern about users being "able to do a fresh install without jumping through hoops"), but it seems a bit more forethought could have been put into what changing the link would do to that experience. (Did someone try it?) I don't know if you have a regular crisis management team or response plan in place, or if this is always done on an ad hoc basis, but it seems that the need for an "oops" message on the release notes page would be obvious. (I added a comment to bug 1069545 about that. I also see there why a link to 32.0.1 wasn't appropriate.)

Comment 6

[Steve Chessin]

Bug 1071597 is marked as "fixed" but when I go to
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/32.0.2/releasenotes/
and click on the Download link
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/
it takes me to
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/
where it says

Congrats! You’re using the latest version of Firefox.

even though I'm on 32.0.1. (I added a comment over there as well.)

Comment 7

[Chris More [:cmore]]

(In reply to Steve Chessin from comment #6)
> Bug 1071597 is marked as "fixed" but when I go to
> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/32.0.2/releasenotes/
> and click on the Download link
> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/
> it takes me to
> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/
> where it says
> 
> Congrats! You’re using the latest version of Firefox.
> 
> even though I'm on 32.0.1. (I added a comment over there as well.)

That's because Firefox only passes the major version of Firefox (on purpose) and one minor, but it doesn't include dot released within a minor version. If you look at your comment 0, you'll see 32.0. The UA will be the same value for both 32.0.1 and 32.0.2 and the code on /firefox/new/ is looking at the user agent to determine if it is up-to-date or not. While not ideal for 100% of all use cases, it is being improved to include full version numbers only for *.mozilla.org properties via bug 988725 and bug 1065525.

Comment 8

[Lawrence Mandel [:lmandel] (use needinfo)]

After discussing this with cmore and pmac on irc, I think we should take a different approach and serve the correct update with instructions on how to work around the Gatekeeper restrictions. I have filed bug 1072538.

Comment 9

[Jennifer Bertsch [:jbertsch]]

Not exactly a duplicate, but resolving and referencing the new bug lmandel opened.