Tracking bug for 0.5 RC1 Cleanup

VERIFIED FIXED in Lightning 0.5

Status

Calendar
General
VERIFIED FIXED
11 years ago
10 years ago

People

(Reporter: Fallen, Unassigned)

Tracking

unspecified
Lightning 0.5
Dependency tree / graph

Details

(URL)

Attachments

(3 obsolete attachments)

(Reporter)

Description

11 years ago
We need to go through the steps for release preparation. This bug is here to track it and collect patches.
Flags: blocking-calendar0.5+
(Reporter)

Comment 1

11 years ago
Created attachment 264347 [details] [diff] [review]
Remove firefox support, bump versions

This proposes a change to the lightning makefiles to automatically omit firefox support on release builds. We just need to make sure that the variables (MOZILLA_OFFICIAL,MOZ_MILESTONE_RELEASE,BUILD_OFFICIAL) are not set on our nightlies as it currently happens in http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla1.8/source/tools/tinderbox-configs/sunbird/linux/mozconfig#6
Attachment #264347 - Flags: review?(lilmatt)
(Reporter)

Comment 2

11 years ago
Comment on attachment 264347 [details] [diff] [review]
Remove firefox support, bump versions

scratch that, doesn't quite work. ideas?
Attachment #264347 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #264347 - Flags: review?(lilmatt)

Comment 3

11 years ago
Why do we still need Firefox support anyway? Why don't we just completely remove it, thereby streamlining our release preparation process?

Comment 4

11 years ago
(In reply to comment #3)
I know I'm probably sounding repetitive here, but I still strongly feel the firefox-calendar space is a valuable area to explore, if only because it's a much more widely deployed groundwork for extensions than Thunderbird.  As long as the costs are minimal (and they are here) I think it should stay.
(Reporter)

Comment 5

11 years ago
Created attachment 264464 [details] [diff] [review]
Remove firefox support, bump versions

Thats fine with me too, otherwise I have a new patch. I mixed up the ifdef/ifndef in the install.rdf
Attachment #264464 - Flags: review?(lilmatt)

Comment 6

11 years ago
I would suggest to use the easy solution we used for previous releases: Remove Firefox support from install.rdf for release building and add it back afterwards. IMHO there is no need for the makefile changes that depend on some external environment/build settings.

Also, if we are going to do a real RC the version number should be 0.5 not 0.5rc1.

Comment 7

11 years ago
Created attachment 265451 [details] [diff] [review]
rev0 - prepare for release

Bump version number to 0.5, disable Firefox support in Lightning, set update channel to release and enables official branding

Patch is for MOZILLA_1_8_BRANCH. 
I'm not sure what changes are required for MOZILLA_1_8_BRANCH_l10n too.
Attachment #265451 - Flags: review?(daniel.boelzle)

Comment 8

11 years ago
Comment on attachment 265451 [details] [diff] [review]
rev0 - prepare for release

>Index: mozilla/calendar/lightning/install.rdf
>-    <!-- We only allow installation of Lightning into Firefox for ease of
>-       - development. You can edit the JS and then click reload in Firefox as
>-       - opposed to having to restart Thunderbird after each edit. -->
>-    <em:targetApplication>
>-      <Description>
>-        <!-- firefox -->
>-        <em:id>{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}</em:id>
>-#ifdef MOZILLA_1_8_BRANCH
>-        <em:minVersion>1.5</em:minVersion>
>-        <em:maxVersion>2.0.*</em:maxVersion>
>-#else
>-        <em:minVersion>@FIREFOX_VERSION@</em:minVersion>
>-        <em:maxVersion>@FIREFOX_VERSION@</em:maxVersion>
>-#endif
>-      </Description>
>-    </em:targetApplication>
>-

r=dbo; The only nit/enhancement I could imagine is to #ifdef this by preprocessor define, so we still have firefox support for developer builds. I think Philipp already had some OMIT_FIREFOX in one of his patches.
Attachment #265451 - Flags: review?(daniel.boelzle) → review+
(Reporter)

Comment 9

11 years ago
I did yes. I requested review from Matthew on that part, since I'm not sure which variables should be used to mark a "release" build. Shortly I noticed, that MOZILLA_OFFICIAL is being set by tinderbox in any case. Maybe one of BUILD_OFFICIAL or MOZ_MILESTONE_RELEASE is set on release builds automatically? Since Matthew has a lot to do right now, I'd be fine with just taking Stefan's patch for now and then taking care of automating it post 0.5.

Whats the latest news on tagging and further release preparation?

Comment 10

11 years ago
As far as I know the Lightning tinderboxen were not changed for release builds, only the Sunbird tinderboxen. For the last releases we just removed the Firefox stuff from install.rdf and added it back after the release. This looked easier to me than tweaking the Lightning build process and tinderboxen.

I think the first step would be to make the tinderboxen build official builds using 0.5 version number. Then the l10n tinderboxen need to be changed to repack the 0.5 builds with official branding. If everything is working we probably need to tag the mozilla and the l10n sources and make the tinderboxen build and repack from the release tag. (I bet lilmatt knows all the details)

Comment 11

11 years ago
Comment on attachment 265451 [details] [diff] [review]
rev0 - prepare for release

Patch is obsolete, lilmatt checked in similar changes to SUNBIRD_0_5_BRANCH.
Attachment #265451 - Attachment is obsolete: true

Comment 12

11 years ago
Current status:

Lightning: tinderboxen not yet changed, still building 0.5pre

Sunbird: tinderboxen changed to build 0.5 with official branding, working

Sunbird l10n: tinderboxen changed to repackage 0.5, partially busted
ca, cs, da, es-ES, ga-IE, hu, nl, ru, sk, sl are working
de, eu, fr, it, mk, mn, nb-NO, pa-IN, pt-BR, sv-SE are failing

From looking at the tinderbox log files I see that the cvs co call is correct, but in the checkout log I see that not all files are check out. For example for de only l10n/de/calendar is checked out, for fr only only l10n/fr/calendar and l10n/fr/dom.

Maybe the missing files and folders are not correctly tagged with SUNBIRD_0_5_RELEASE?

Updated

11 years ago
Depends on: 382155

Updated

11 years ago
Depends on: 381885
Comment on attachment 264464 [details] [diff] [review]
Remove firefox support, bump versions

Philipp, is that patch (and the review) still needed?
(Reporter)

Comment 14

11 years ago
Comment on attachment 264464 [details] [diff] [review]
Remove firefox support, bump versions

No, I think the OMIT_FIREFOX_SUPPORT changes can wait post-0.5, the rest of the changes were done already.
Attachment #264464 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #264464 - Flags: review?(lilmatt)

Updated

11 years ago
Depends on: 382225

Comment 15

11 years ago
Shouldn't it be closed? RC1 has been released...

Comment 16

11 years ago
RC2 is released now. Resolving FIXED.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 11 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED

Updated

10 years ago
Flags: blocking-calendar0.5+
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.