Closed Bug 1295963 Opened 6 years ago Closed 4 years ago
Please rename b99 to rc in the frontend
Since we have introduced RC build, aka b99, this is quite confusing for new comers. We should rename them to rc1, rc2, etc Example with 48: https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/search/?product=Firefox&version=48.0b99&_sort=-date&_facets=signature&_facets=build_id&_columns=date&_columns=signature&_columns=product&_columns=version&_columns=build_id&_columns=platform#facet-build_id
These version strings come in from archives.mozilla.org, which we scrape. Why not ask them to update the version strings? Or are you suggesting that Socorro, the webapp, pretends that the version is called "rc1" when it's actually called "b99"? Won't that cause even more confusion for seasoned Mozillians who are familiar with what b99 means?
(In reply to Peter Bengtsson [:peterbe] from comment #1) > These version strings come in from archives.mozilla.org, which we scrape. > Why not ask them to update the version strings? Ben, I think you were involved in the RC design. Do you think it would be possible? > Or are you suggesting that Socorro, the webapp, pretends that the version is > called "rc1" when it's actually called "b99"? Won't that cause even more > confusion for seasoned Mozillians who are familiar with what b99 means? rc1 or rc2 is well understood now. b99 is now and doesn't many anything. This is why, if we could do something like if version == "b99" and buildid=xxxxx: versionToPrint="rc1" if version == "b99" and buildid=yyyyy: versionToPrint="rc2"
I don't think we use b99 in names...
I'm unclear what's being asked. AFAIK, we never have anything in ship it or release promotion that calls itself "b99". RCs are mozilla-release builds that happen to ship to the beta channel. They are versioned as "X.Y" in product, in Ship It, and on FTP.
The scraper is what's creating b99's: https://github.com/mozilla/socorro/blob/2f5f49b/socorro/cron/jobs/ftpscraper.py#L440-L465
Although I have worked on the ftpscraper, there's still lots of things I'm not familiar with. In particular I wasn't around when we introduced the concept of "rapid betas" or "final betas" so I don't understand this code. I notice that this happens right after the build has already been inserted. The if statement happens *additionally* after the regular build has been inserted. Do we still need it at all? Perhaps Adrian knows something about it?
How do we identify those rc1 builds? It sounds to me like we need another processor rule to replace the version number when version is X and build is Y, much like we have for the rapid beta version numbers.
This got fixed when I redid the BetaVersionRule to use Buildhub in bug #1501780. Marking as FIXED.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 4 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.