259136 - Incorrect message for version of Firefox to upgrade from?

Status: RESOLVED INVALID

(Toolkit :: Startup and Profile System, defect)

Description

[andrew.ferrier]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040911 Firefox/0.10
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040911 Firefox/0.10

I'm using Firefox 1.0PRrc downloaded on 2004-09-13.

When starting Firefox with a clean profile, it asks me if I want to import
settings from Firefox 0.8, but does not mention 0.9 --- it probably should,
shouldn't it?

Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:

Comment 1

[andrew.ferrier]

*** Bug 259137 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 2

[Benjamin Smedberg]

What do you mean "starting with a clean profile"? If you already have a profile,
you should not be prompted for migration. If you do *not* already have a
profile, then you can't migrate from 0.9, because then you would have a profile.
QA has tested the profile migration to death, this seems like an odd error.

Comment 3

[Michael Favia]

Perhaps he means no profile? In which case it does ask what to upgrade from if i
remember correctly. Maybe he's talking about the mention of previous versions of
firefox and the missing .9 release mention. As a side note are the options
presented the result of a query of existing profiles/applications or generated
as a default template?

Comment 4

[Benjamin Smedberg]

If we're talking about the "no profiles" case, then this bug is INVALID. You
would never get the dialog if you *had* a 0.9 profile, so it doesn't make sense
to ask if you should import it.

Comment 5

[andrew.ferrier]

Apologies, I should have been clearer. Yes, I meant if the user has NO profile
at all: it currently prompts for upgrade from Firefox 0.8 but not 0.9. I wasn't
aware that profile migration (if any is necessary?) from 0.9 to 1.0 was
automatic; if that is the case, as I think you're implying, Benjamin, then, yes,
this isn't a bug. It wasn't obvious to me that this was the case, but then it
shouldn't matter if that is so.

Apologies for the spurious report; keep up the good work! ;)