283215 - Production has local modifications that differ from BRANCH

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(addons.mozilla.org Graveyard :: Administration, defect)

Description

[Michael Morgan [:morgamic]]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050210 Firefox/1.0 (Debian package 1.0+dfsg.1-6)
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050210 Firefox/1.0 (Debian package 1.0+dfsg.1-6)

Right now production does not reflect what is currently in CVS.  Prod should be
merged with branch then re-checked out at some poitn so CVS can be utilized for
future updates.

This could also allow us to automate the process, if so desired.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:

Comment 1

[Michael Morgan [:morgamic]]

Attachment: overall patch to merge production with branch

Patch to merge local modifications with branch.

Comment 2

[alanjstr]

I can't tell what you changed on this line since the diff viewer doesn't wrap if
there's no whitespace.  Maybe you can put some whitespace in yours around the
concatenation dots.

http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/webtools/update/core/reportcomment.php#83

It looks like this includes the patch from bug 281029.

I see changes in here that I don't recognize, such as proper quoting of html. 
Are they really in prod?  

Comment 3

[Michael Morgan [:morgamic]]

(In reply to comment #2)
> I can't tell what you changed on this line since the diff viewer doesn't wrap if
> there's no whitespace.  Maybe you can put some whitespace in yours around the
> concatenation dots.
The only difference is the '//' that comments out the entire line.

> It looks like this includes the patch from bug 281029.
Yes; that is why this bug depends on bug 281029.

> I see changes in here that I don't recognize, such as proper quoting of html. 
> Are they really in prod?
No; I changed them since I was already there editing the code.

Comment 4

[alanjstr]

Comment on attachment 175201 [details] [diff] [review]
overall patch to merge production with branch

No making changes that are not in scope.  That means: no making the code
pretty.  Sorry.

Comment 5

[Michael Morgan [:morgamic]]

Should I create another bug and submit another patch for something that pretty
much amounts to fixing an HTML validation error that should have never existed
in the first place?

How should I handle it?

Comment 6

[alanjstr]

That's the kind of thing you should document in the wiki and will be handled
with whatever we do for correcting those issues.

Comment 7

[Michael Morgan [:morgamic]]

Attachment: revised patch

Dropped login page changes because they were cosmetic.

Comment 8

[alanjstr]

Comment on attachment 175846 [details] [diff] [review]
revised patch

Not thrilled with some of the changes, especially near the bottom.

Comment 9

[Michael Morgan [:morgamic]]

Attachment: 3rd attempt to patch branch.

3rd try....

Comment 10

[alanjstr]

Fixed 2005-02-28 17:07