246818 - Firefox can't start after upgraded to 0.9 from 0.9rc1

Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 246806

(Firefox :: Migration, defect)

Description

[Alan Tam]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040608 Firefox/0.8.0+
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040608 Firefox/0.8.0+

I have been using a few nightly builds since 0.8, so has witnessed both changes
in profile path. The lastly installed build is 0.9rc1.

Today installed 0.9 installer build into a clean directory, keeping profile
unchanged. Firefox doesn't start at all. More precisely, I *think* it has
started, trying to do some migration and restart, and then found that the
migration is not yet done, and restart, etc. What make it worse is that I can't
even kill the task, error being "The operation could not be completed.\n\nThe
operation is not valid for this process." The only way to close it is to restart
Windows.

Running it with a clean profile works.

Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Start Windows
2. Start firefox
3.

Actual Results:  
Firefox never completely starts. It uses a lot of CPU time, but cumulated CPU
Time used is still 0.

Expected Results:  
Firefox starts.

C:\Documents and Settings\Alan Tam\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\profil
es.ini shows:
[General]
StartWithLastProfile=1

[Profile0]
Name=default
IsRelative=0
Path=C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\ALAN TAM\APPLICATION DATA\Firefox\Profiles\defaul
t\xxxxxxxx.xxx

Comment 1

[Alan Tam]

Attachment: Screenshot

Screenshot showing the task manager ~30 seconds after firefox has been started.

Comment 2

[George Deka]

See if this relates to you
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/ben

Comment 3

[Alan Tam]

Yes, it solves. The problem is: do you treat this, upgrading from nightly to
release, as a bug? In my opinion, Firefox should at least prompt the user for
this possible problem, or try to fix the incorrect data. I expect such problem
will continue to exist when people upgrade from one nightly to another. Hence,
it maybe not critical, but should be P1.

Comment 4

[Michael Lefevre]

It has apparently been fixed for future releases (although most people have
probably fixed it by deleting the files by now anyway)



*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 246806 ***