Closed
Bug 486182
Opened 15 years ago
Closed 15 years ago
Land NSS 3.12.3 final in mozilla-central (the experimental firefox trunk)
Categories
(Core :: Security: PSM, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: KaiE, Assigned: KaiE)
References
Details
NSS 3.12.3 will be released soon. Once that happened, it should be delivered to mozilla-central.
Assignee | ||
Updated•15 years ago
|
Comment 1•15 years ago
|
||
Isn't this a duplicate of bug 481968 ?
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•15 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #1) > Isn't this a duplicate of bug 481968 ? Well, usually we use a single bug to perform a task in multiple target Mozilla branches, and use the overall state for Mozilla trunk, and use keywords like fixed1.9.x to mark it fixed for branches. But given that we already had a branch-specific version of this task (bug 481968 for mozilla-1.9.1 equiv. Firefox 3.1/3.5) I decided not to morph that bug but have a separate one...
Comment 3•15 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #1) > Isn't this a duplicate of bug 481968 ? This is a precursor to that. Bug 481968 is about taking the 3.12.3 tag on the FF3.5 release branch, whereas this bug is about taking it on the mozilla-central development trunk. Nothing can land on the branch until it's landed on trunk to "bake" for a day or two, so the landings can't be handled simultaneously by one bug.
Comment 4•15 years ago
|
||
Any progress here?
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•15 years ago
|
||
There is no release tag, and no release candidate tag yet.
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•15 years ago
|
||
We have release candidate tag NSS_3_12_3_RC0 Nelson or Bob, can you please confirm (r+ in a comment) that we want to give this tag to Mozilla?
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•15 years ago
|
||
I'm running a local verification build of mozilla-central with this new NSS tag. Once it succeeds I'll land this tag (and afterwards bug 485052) into mozilla-central (Firefox trunk).
Comment 8•15 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #6) > Nelson or Bob, can you please confirm (r+ in a comment) that we want to give > this tag to Mozilla? Please see the comments to this effect in bug 481968. Thanks.
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•15 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #6) > > > Nelson or Bob, can you please confirm (r+ in a comment) that we want to give > > this tag to Mozilla? > > Please see the comments to this effect in bug 481968. Thanks. I take this as r+ for landing.
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•15 years ago
|
||
I pushed NSS 3.12.3 rc0 as http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/e4c0eed67bf9 Afterwards I realized we better trigger a full NSS rebuild (non-depend), so I pushed a change to file coreconf.dep, http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/8ab63b55444a
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•15 years ago
|
||
Tinderbox cycled OK on all 3 platforms, resolving as fixed.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 15 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Assignee | ||
Comment 12•15 years ago
|
||
I looked into a wrong column when declaring victory... There was a build failure due to come code only being built in the Mozilla client. Temporarily disabled building this code (r=nelson) and filed bug 487162 to get it right.
This broke mobile -- needs either a fix or needs to be backed out ASAP. The mobile and other bustage is tracked in 487673, I think?
Assignee | ||
Comment 14•15 years ago
|
||
See bug 487673 and bug 487712 for the wince landing fix.
Comment 15•15 years ago
|
||
This seems to have caused a 15 kilobyte increase in leaks on our leak tests: http://graphs.mozilla.org/#show=1473670,1473418,1474269&sel=1239054531,1239082911 http://graphs.mozilla.org/server/dumpdata.cgi?show=1473670,1473418,1474269&sel=1239054531,1239082910
Comment 16•15 years ago
|
||
I see a graph with no legend, and apparently using only color coding, which doesn't help me, to identify the lines. Are you talking about the number that went from 906092 somethings to 921849 somethings (+1.7%) at ~7 PM on 6 April? This is the subject of Bug 487394, is it not ?
Comment 17•15 years ago
|
||
Maybe. The units are bytes.
Comment 18•15 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #16) > I see a graph with no legend, and apparently using only color coding, which > doesn't help me, to identify the lines. > > Are you talking about the number that went from 906092 somethings to > 921849 somethings (+1.7%) at ~7 PM on 6 April? > > This is the subject of Bug 487394, is it not ? Almost certainly - see bug 485052 comment 21 and below for the backstory that led to bug 487394 being opened to track this leak.
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•