Closed Bug 18118 Opened 25 years ago Closed 25 years ago

[BETA] Migration occurs without users acceptance

Categories

(Core Graveyard :: Profile: Migration, defect, P3)

defect

Tracking

(Not tracked)

VERIFIED FIXED

People

(Reporter: dougt, Assigned: sspitzer)

References

Details

I have one profile, and ever time I do a clean install of mozilla, it migrates
my profile.  This is totally unexceptable.  I want to keep my netscape profile
seperate from the one the mozilla uses.  In any case, I believe that this
migration should be an option like it is in 4.5x.
Assignee: dbragg → racham
Not a profile migration bug.  This is actually a Profile Manager bug since
Profile Manager calls the Pref Migration Code.  This is actually a dead snake
but far be it from me to prevent the resurrection of previously deceased
reptilian creatures.

Reassigning to Bhuvan
This is not a bug for the commercial build.  The behavior described is
exactly what should happen for Netscape branded builds.

Now, when we differentiate between mozilla build and Netscape build, I can see
how some people would want the behaviors to be different.  So this bug is really
about a more general situation -- which is how do we handle/manage differences
between mozilla and commercial builds?

I know this general topic has been discussed before, and managing two builds or
increasing the diffs between the two builds is nontrivial work.

So, do we know how significant this migration problem is to how large a group of
people?  We can't make a decision to separate this in the two builds until we
have more data.  My info to-date says that the current behavior is a non-issue
for many, but I'm open to new info.

Thus, until we have more info, I'd like to say that this bug is not really a
bug.

thx,
kevin
if you run mozilla.exe with -installer, it will automatically migrate if you
have one platform.

if you run just mozilla.exe, you'll get the "Create Profile Wizard".

I think the commercial installer runs "mozilla.exe -installer".

dougt, how are you running it?
adding myself to the cc list.
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Target Milestone: M12
Do we want a different behavior for mozilla builds..?
Accepting the bug.
Target Milestone: M12 → M13
Adding Kevin to the cc list.
Pending on the decision to/not to do the silent migration.
Moving TFV to M13.
Target Milestone: M13 → M15
Perhaps we could have the official installer ask the user:

"do you want to migrate your 4.x profile now?  You can always do this
 later by doing this..."

if they said yes, we run -installer, of they say no, we don't.
Summary: Migration occurs without users acceptance → [BETA] Migration occurs without users acceptance
adding [beta] to the summary.
sspitzer --
good suggestion.  let's track this idea as (1) public feedback comes in, and (2)
see what we actually end up doing for migration (whether or not it's copy).

thx,
kevin
I think that the we should do as other apps do and put up a dialog.  If we get
feedback that users do not want this dialog, we can revert the code.
*** Bug 21776 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Doug,
A large group carefully made the decision several months ago.  So the current
implementation -- automigrate -- is the plan we have going forward, at least for
now.

Also, I do not believe the best product dev process is to just implement
features/ideas and see what sticks.

So, as I mentioned before, let's hold off on making any changes to the current
plan until we have good info that says we need to.

thx,
kevin
What happens in cases where mailbox copying fails, as in bug 19163, or in the
case where there isn't enough disk space for a second copy of a user's entire
mailbox hierarchy?  Does it copy the important stuff first, so the user can
still use the app?
This is ridiculous. We don't believe we should implement features and see what
sticks, but hijacking 200MB of my hard drive without asking me is OK. This is
not OK in any sense of the word. An application should NEVER perform an action
on the user's system that is not absolutely necessary without asking first. I
cannot even come up with words to describe how dumb this is. How on this green
Earth did any thinking human being come to the conclusion that Mozilla or
Netscape should just start copying users files across their system without
asking?
Jerry, I could not have express what I am feeling better than what you just
said.

Kevin, what "large group carefully made the decision several months ago".  I
did not see the most important group represent, namely mozilla.

Furthermore kevin, the best product dev process will not guarantee you the best
product if the features/ideas suck.  Please list one application on today's
desktop which auto migrates a user without a choice.  My count is zero.

adding brendan and shaver to discussion.
I recall being part of a "large group" that discussed this several months ago
in a morning Pit meeting, is that what you're talking about Kevin? I haven't
looked up my notes, but I don't think that auto-migration was ever meant to
imply silent migration. Prior notification and consent of the user is
fundamental in any lengthy, irreversable operation, especially one that can have
such severe side effects.
I agree with peter, dougt, jerry, brendan, etc.

it would pretty simple to put an ok cancel dialog in right now, and give the
user a chance to stop the automigration.

so simple, that I'm going to look into how long it would take.  wink.
I've got changes in my tree to do the following:

just before automigration is about to happen, and simple ok cancel dialog popup
up and says:

You are about to migrate your 4.x profile.
Are you sure you want to do this?
(If you click cancel, you can always do it later.)
<ok> <cancel>

If you hit ok, it automatically migrates
If you hit cancel, you get the profile manager dialog (where you can migrate or
create a new profile if you want.)

this dialog does not show up when migrating, only when automatic migration
happens.

it was simple to add, someone want to bless it?
This sounds like a huge improvement, though I'd like to have less geeky
language, or at least add some explanation, in the final version.  I doubt many
users know what '4.x', 'profile', or 'migration' mean here. Average folks might
be likely to cancel just because they don't understand what is happening.  I'd
guess that's why marketing liked the silent migration.
Brendan asked that I look at this bug... so here's some comments.  First I'll
jump to the chase and suggest my solution ('cause you may not be willing to read
this comment in toto), and then I'll give the detailed justification.

IMO, there should be a checkbox added to the custom install, that allows a user
to decline the auto-migration.  That is IMO a much better solution... and this
is the reasoning.

Some folks have reasonably asserted that "they don't like the automigration."
They went on to propose solutions (add another dialog box to the install flow),
but it was very good to see a clear statement of the problem to be considered.

Kevin comment that "automigration is part of a Netscape spec" as a reason for
this feature... and alas, even though this reason is not sufficient, it hints at
a good reason.  The obvious underlying reason for something like this in a spec
is that some novice users would be more bothered by the additional dialog, and
would potentially be confused (my mom is an example, so please watch what you
say about such users ;-) ).  In protest, Peter correctly pointed out that
sometimes this is a large operation, and even asserted that it might be
"irreversible."  That picture drawn, I sure wish we could figure out when it
would be "big" (etc.), and only get into the questions if that is an issue...
but that might too hard.  I guess it is nice that when there is no prior
profile, then we know it is small enough to ask nothing :-).

IMO, when I see a signed off spec, it *does* mean that a group of folks have
worked hard to produce and think through some issues, and that other folks have
reviewed and checked off the spec.  I try to give credit to such industrious
activities.  Given that Netscape has a spec to meet, it is critical that any
changes (at a minimum) be supportive of the use of mozilla in commercial
settings, which includes the potential for meeting the spec (or at least the
spirit of the spec).  As a result, whatever change is made, it sure would be
nice if it was easy to integrate into a Netscape build, meeting a Netscape spec
(without making a dup file, etc.)

Given the problem (want to be able to avoid migration) and the goal (want to
avoid adding complexities to the install), it becomes clear that if new
complexities need to be added (migrate? don't migrate?) they should go in the
install flow where the user has *asked* for more control.

The most obvious place to put such a question is in the "custom" install dialog.
This would mean that the novice user that didn't want to answer many questions
(that's why I select "typical" most of the time :-) ).  It would also mean that
the more seasoned user could have more control. It might even be that there
should be an "advanced" sub-dialog to the "custom" dialog that has a bunch of
such questions... but I'd rather see us crawl-walk-run, and start with just
adding one question.

It might be that usability tests suggest that the migrate(yes/no) should be in
an advanced dialog no matter what... but only usability tests can get me that
info... and my educated guesses (since I'm not a UI designer) are possibly not
on the mark.

Again, I wanted to stress, if we do change the code, it sure would be nice to
facilitate easy integration into a commercial product with reasonable UE
specs... such as what kevin referred to.

Thanks,

Jim
Agree that adding a checkbox (checked meaning migrate) is better than adding a
dialog.  Don't think that it should be hidden in an 'advanced' UI, though.
There's nothing magic about a spec, even one that has been widely reviewed.
Where was the spec posted in the mozilla.org newsgroups or website?  Anyway,
trudelle's recollection of the meeting did not include unconfirmed migration.

Anyway, this bug is not the place to be opining about where to put the checkbox.
Newsgroup threads are better for that because more people can read and respond.

I don't think commercial contributors to Mozilla need any special pleading based
on (hidden) specs already being "signed off".  In fact that cuts no ice with me
or others on staff@mozilla.org.  Let's stick to the merits of the design, which
is not based on assertions, however reasonable: it's based on dougt's and
others' real experiences, along with UI guidelines (on some platforms, close to
gospel) for when to confirm a lengthy and disk hungry operation with a user.
Then there are usability tests, which we eagerly await.  But at a minimum, there
has to be open discussion in a mozilla public group.

/be
It's not clear to me what the resolution is.

Let me know if you want me to check in what I have.

(and, the text for that addition dialog is in a dtd file, so in addition to
localizing it, we can come up with a better way of putting it.  I'm not known
for my prose.)
ok, now I see the decision.  no dialog.  back to the salt mines.
sspitzer, what resolution do you see?  Trudelle's synthesis that puts the
checkbox in the main sequence of dialogs, and not on the expert/custom only
dialog path?  Just checking.  Someone tell it to mozilla.seamonkey in reply to
dougt's thread, so we can hear what a wider audience thinks.

/be
long thread here.  I wish it was on the newsgroup.  Automigration without
any user permission is *clearly* a bug.   seth, I say check what you got in.
I just added a summary of what I wrote earlier to the seamonkey newsgroup.
I second dougt - worse is better for now, improve it more later.
Assignee: racham → sspitzer
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
re-assign to me.  seeking checkin approval.
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Target Milestone: M15 → M13
moving to m13, brendan has approved.

worse is better, if the dialog really stinks, we'll fix it.

checking in tomorrow, after I get the code reviewed.
This is a very important topic, but not the best use of our time right now.  So,
let's adopt this plan:

1. The first NS preview/release will in all likelihood be geared towards
advanced, tech users.  Their high-speed connections and comfort w/involved
install procedures minimize the need to automigration.  Thus, if the code work
is done already, then, fine, check in the code if PDT(?) okays it.

2. The explicit dialog solution is unacceptable for NS releases geared towards a
more mass audience.  So this explicit dialog will be removed later.  In it's
place will either be (1) a more subtle interface, or (2) a better "migration"
technology that makes this bug irrelevant.

Thank you to everyone who contributed thoughtfully to this thread.  We'll do
the right thing.

kevin
not checking in.

waiting for selmer and sol to discuss.
Target Milestone: M13 → M15
Assignee: sspitzer → selmer
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
Reassign to selmer per email conversation
adding myself to the CC: list
Assignee: selmer → sspitzer
Yikes!  My last update is missing!

Kevin Yen and I discussed the issue and concluded that using the popup that Seth
has is OK for the beta because of the expected audience.  After the beta, we
need to have a better plan in place.  Kevin will be calling a meeting to discuss
the options we have other than "migrate by copy" - if we can agree on a
migration strategy that doesn't include copying the mail store then automatic
migration should be acceptable.

Seth, please check in what you've got so we can start refining its UI for the
beta.
Why is Netscape/Mozilla so determined to *FORCE* migration? What if we _DO NOT
WANT TO_? You cannot make an application force people to do things that are not
necessary. This is not Microsoft.
We would like to provide the very useful service of making the average user's
existing profile automatically work with the new version of the product.  The
average (non-developer) user doesn't really want to even know profiles exist and
can successfully use the product without having that knowledge forced upon
them.

We've chosen to optimize in the case of a user with exactly one profile because
we know from experience that 99% of them are not aware that they even _have_ a
profile.  Why would we want to put a dialog in their face that they are not
going to understand?

To the extent that migration is successful, these users will immediately see a
tremendous benefit from having a familiar set of bookmarks, mail messages,
preferences etc.  I agree that the multi-megabyte copy problem needs to be
resolved.  I don't agree that there is any harm in automatic migration if we fix
the copy problem.
I do not have a problem with automatic migration as the default option, but you
*MUST* provide a way to avoid it if one wants to. The whole problem here is not
the actual migration, but the fact that something is going to be forced down our
throats without asking us. This is my computer, not yours. I will decide if I
migrate or not, not Netscape.

I think the only reason users are not aware that they have a "profile" is
because it is called a profile. If you asked users if they wanted to use their
bookmarks, address books, email, newsgroups, prefs, etc. from their Netscape 4.X
installation I bet they would have no problem understanding.
As we move forward, and support multiple migration formats, it will clearly be
the case that there will multiple copies of the (effectively) same accounts in
different formats.  It would not make sense to migrate them all... and hence it
will probably be the case that you can equally well select to migrate none.  We
need to look at the UI and come to a sensible solution... but I don't belive
Netscape/Mozilla or anyone else will be forcing migration.  It will likely be
the default by Netscape (re: "typical" install options, but not necessarilly
part of "custom" options) ... but it probably won't be forced by Netscape... and
there is no doubt that Mozilla will generically speaking have clear choice
options.
OK, so this really comes down to using a default pref to decide if automigration
is allowed.  I can accept that.

As for users understanding of profiles by any name, I remain dubious.  In prior
releases of Netscape, we went to great lengths to explain profiles in the manner
you describe to no good effect.

I've opened bug 22492 to request that a default pref control any form of
automigration.
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
before I check in my dialog fix, I'll make sure it can be configured via a pref.

then, in all-ns.js (the netscape prefs) I'll turn it off, and in all.js (the
mozilla prefs) it will be on.

so with mozilla, you get the dialog warning you, with ns, you don't.  (until
someone changes the default.)

accepting.
And we'd still prefer a less intrusive UI (i.e., no dialog) that lets the user
know what is going to happen, and allow them to override?
yes, it is agreed that we'd prefer a less intrusive UI.

kevin has set up a meeting to discuss the UI and migration policy.

until then, we will have a dialog.
Target Milestone: M15 → M13
marking m13, check in fix soon.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 25 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
fixed.

I changed the wording of that dialog.  if someone has another wording, just fix
mozilla/profile/resources/locale/en-US/confirmMigration.dtd
*** Bug 22492 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Seth,
I am seeing this fix on Win and Mac's builds today but not Linux.  Should I be
seeing it there as well?

Grace
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
Linux builds 2000010308 and 2000010408 are still automigrating the single
profile-no dialog displayed
weird, I was seeing the dialog in my mozilla build yesterday.

just to make sure we are all on the same page, the desired behaviour is

when running -installer with exactly one 4.x profile and no mozilla registry,
mozilla builds, all platforms, should get that dialog.
commercial builds, all platforms, should not.

I'll go double check linux.
the linux commercial build
(ftp://sweetlou/products/client/seamonkey/unix/linux/2.2/x86/current/netscap
e-i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gz) automigrates (no dialog)

the mozilla build
(ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/2000-01-05-08-M13/mozilla-i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gz)
gives me the dialog

this is the desired behaviour.
my error - tested mozilla builds and they are ok
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 25 years ago25 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
so I'm going to mark this fixed again.

there is one problem relating to this, and pmock has already logged the bug.

pmock reported that on the windows commercial build, all-ns.js wasn't being
packaged.

if all-ns.js doesn't get packaged, then the commercial build behaves like the
mozilla build, and gets the dialog.
Good. If the commercial Netscape builds do not offer this choice, I will not be
installing one. I will advise others in the Netscape Communicator group to do
the same. This is the same sort of brainless shooting-yourself-in-the-foot that
Netscape has been doing since 4.X.
someone (kevinyen? selmer?) will be posting a new proposal to the right
newsgroup to get feedback.

the basic idea will be by default, we'll be doing a migrate in place (move, not
copy) when you upgrade from 4.x to 5.0

you will have the ability (with some advanced dialog in the installer) to do a
copy and diverge upgrade.
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
moz build on Linux 2000010508
23090 is the bug to track the new proposal

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18118

thx,
kevin
Mass removing self from CC list.
Now I feel sumb because I have to add back. Sorry for the spam.
Product: Core → Core Graveyard
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.