Closed
Bug 18118
Opened 25 years ago
Closed 25 years ago
[BETA] Migration occurs without users acceptance
Categories
(Core Graveyard :: Profile: Migration, defect, P3)
Core Graveyard
Profile: Migration
Tracking
(Not tracked)
VERIFIED
FIXED
M13
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.
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
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•25 years ago
|
||
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?
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•25 years ago
|
||
adding myself to the cc list.
Do we want a different behavior for mozilla builds..? Accepting the bug.
Adding Kevin to the cc list. Pending on the decision to/not to do the silent migration. Moving TFV to M13.
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•25 years ago
|
||
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.
Reporter | ||
Updated•25 years ago
|
Summary: Migration occurs without users acceptance → [BETA] Migration occurs without users acceptance
Reporter | ||
Comment 8•25 years ago
|
||
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
Reporter | ||
Comment 10•25 years ago
|
||
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.
Comment 11•25 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 21776 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 12•25 years ago
|
||
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
Comment 13•25 years ago
|
||
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?
Comment 14•25 years ago
|
||
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?
Reporter | ||
Comment 15•25 years ago
|
||
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.
Comment 16•25 years ago
|
||
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.
Assignee | ||
Comment 17•25 years ago
|
||
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.
Assignee | ||
Comment 18•25 years ago
|
||
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?
Comment 19•25 years ago
|
||
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.
Comment 20•25 years ago
|
||
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
Comment 21•25 years ago
|
||
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.
Comment 22•25 years ago
|
||
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
Assignee | ||
Comment 23•25 years ago
|
||
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.)
Assignee | ||
Comment 24•25 years ago
|
||
ok, now I see the decision. no dialog. back to the salt mines.
Comment 25•25 years ago
|
||
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
Reporter | ||
Comment 26•25 years ago
|
||
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.
Assignee | ||
Comment 27•25 years ago
|
||
I just added a summary of what I wrote earlier to the seamonkey newsgroup.
Comment 28•25 years ago
|
||
I second dougt - worse is better for now, improve it more later.
Assignee | ||
Updated•25 years ago
|
Assignee: racham → sspitzer
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
Assignee | ||
Comment 29•25 years ago
|
||
re-assign to me. seeking checkin approval.
Assignee | ||
Updated•25 years ago
|
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Target Milestone: M15 → M13
Assignee | ||
Comment 30•25 years ago
|
||
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.
Comment 31•25 years ago
|
||
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
Assignee | ||
Comment 32•25 years ago
|
||
not checking in. waiting for selmer and sol to discuss.
Updated•25 years ago
|
Target Milestone: M13 → M15
Updated•25 years ago
|
Assignee: sspitzer → selmer
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
Comment 33•25 years ago
|
||
Reassign to selmer per email conversation
Comment 34•25 years ago
|
||
adding myself to the CC: list
Updated•25 years ago
|
Assignee: selmer → sspitzer
Comment 35•25 years ago
|
||
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.
Comment 36•25 years ago
|
||
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.
Comment 37•25 years ago
|
||
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.
Comment 38•25 years ago
|
||
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.
Comment 39•25 years ago
|
||
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.
Comment 40•25 years ago
|
||
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.
Assignee | ||
Updated•25 years ago
|
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Assignee | ||
Comment 41•25 years ago
|
||
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.
Comment 42•25 years ago
|
||
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?
Assignee | ||
Comment 43•25 years ago
|
||
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.
Assignee | ||
Updated•25 years ago
|
Target Milestone: M15 → M13
Assignee | ||
Comment 44•25 years ago
|
||
marking m13, check in fix soon.
Assignee | ||
Updated•25 years ago
|
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 25 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Assignee | ||
Comment 45•25 years ago
|
||
fixed. I changed the wording of that dialog. if someone has another wording, just fix mozilla/profile/resources/locale/en-US/confirmMigration.dtd
Comment 46•25 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 22492 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 47•25 years ago
|
||
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
Updated•25 years ago
|
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Updated•25 years ago
|
Resolution: FIXED → ---
Comment 48•25 years ago
|
||
Linux builds 2000010308 and 2000010408 are still automigrating the single profile-no dialog displayed
Assignee | ||
Comment 49•25 years ago
|
||
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.
Assignee | ||
Comment 50•25 years ago
|
||
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.
Comment 51•25 years ago
|
||
my error - tested mozilla builds and they are ok
Assignee | ||
Updated•25 years ago
|
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 25 years ago → 25 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Assignee | ||
Comment 52•25 years ago
|
||
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.
Comment 53•25 years ago
|
||
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.
Assignee | ||
Comment 54•25 years ago
|
||
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.
Updated•25 years ago
|
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Comment 55•25 years ago
|
||
moz build on Linux 2000010508
Comment 56•25 years ago
|
||
23090 is the bug to track the new proposal http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18118 thx, kevin
Comment 57•22 years ago
|
||
Mass removing self from CC list.
Comment 58•22 years ago
|
||
Now I feel sumb because I have to add back. Sorry for the spam.
Updated•8 years ago
|
Product: Core → Core Graveyard
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•