Closed Bug 514307 Opened 15 years ago Closed 15 years ago

Do an interim WinCE release

Categories

(Release Engineering :: General, defect)

ARM
Windows CE
defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

(status1.9.2 beta1-fixed)

RESOLVED FIXED
Tracking Status
status1.9.2 --- beta1-fixed

People

(Reporter: nthomas, Assigned: nthomas)

References

()

Details

(Whiteboard: [nv])

Attachments

(5 files)

We need have a cab of a Firefox "release" for WinCE created by Friday 12 September, along with a complete mar for future updates. It should specify the beta update channel.

Inputs needed from Vlad:
* confirm we're using mozilla-1.9.2 code, and revision to build (whenever you're ready)
* list of locales to ship (assuming just en-US for now)
* version, naming, branding to use

For version I'd suggest 3.6a2, with title bar "Firefox 3.6 Preview" if alpha is going to be inappropriate. Probably makes more sense to use the Firefox branding than Namoroka.

Not strictly blocked on bug 514305 (which we'll definitely need for 3.6b1), but nice to have. Might require a manual tag anyway for the versioning, then force a build on the appropriate revision.
(In reply to comment #0)
> We need have a cab of a Firefox "release" for WinCE created by Friday 12
> September, along with a complete mar for future updates. It should specify the
> beta update channel.
> 
> Inputs needed from Vlad:
> * confirm we're using mozilla-1.9.2 code, and revision to build (whenever
> you're ready)

Confirmed, building off 1.9.2.  There are still a few things to land for the interim build, but what's on that branch now is fine if we want to do any test runs (it should run and build).

> * list of locales to ship (assuming just en-US for now)

Yep, just en-US for now.  We haven't heard anything about other locales.

> * version, naming, branding to use
> 
> For version I'd suggest 3.6a2, with title bar "Firefox 3.6 Preview" if alpha is
> going to be inappropriate. Probably makes more sense to use the Firefox
> branding than Namoroka.

I agree with this -- we need to check with beltzner for confirmation there though.

Note that a CAB file isn't essential for this, though it would be nice; if it's not created, we can create one manually from the contents of the zip since it'll just be used for first install.
This all sounds right to me:

 - Firefox 3.6a2 is good for a version number
 - build with official-branding
 - Firefox 3.6 Preview is fine for a product name
 - after chatting on IRC with Vlad and Nick, I think we want to ship this with channel-prefs.js using the beta channel, and file a follow up bug to ensure that when we release the update to Firefox 3.6 final, for WinCE, we also patch channel-prefs.js so that they move to the release channel
Did a quick check and it appears that modifying channel-prefs.js works fine, you just have to get that into the mar in the first place. Rob, do you know of any reason to not do that ? 

We may be able to set a force in the patcher config to achieve this, otherwise fallback to repacking the mar more manually. Since we'd be doing this for every 3.6.x release onwards (since not everyone on a beta updates at the first opportunity) we'd very much like the former option to work.

One downside to this approach is anyone who genuinely downloads 3.6b1 and "wants" to be on beta will get moved to release. Maybe that's simpler than shipping this interim one on release, then using beta for b1, which has its own problems.
I don't know of any reason not to. Will you be updating anyone to this release or will it only be available via the cab?
AFAIK these WinCE builds are also for general release.
I think bug 515415 should be fixed for this release so adding dependency.
Depends on: 515415
Just confirming that this is on track for tomorrow, September 11 since Nick's comment mentions Sept 12 which is actually Saturday.
I'm hoping to have a test build for QA to look at in a few hours. Last I heard from Vlad there are still code changes pending on mozilla-1.9.2.
This is based on the attachment 381705 [details] [diff] [review] from bug 493957, less the NSIS installer change which is irrelevant here.
We'll branch and tag the mozilla-1.9.2 source by hand, so this bump is required and will land on a GECKO192a2_YYYYMMDD_RELBRANCH. Tag will be FIREFOX_3_6a2_RELEASE.
(In reply to comment #9)
> This is based on the attachment 381705 [details] [diff] [review] from bug 493957, less the NSIS > installer  change which is irrelevant here.

Oops, meant attachment 381704 [details] [diff] [review] here.
Ok, let's use the timestamp of the nightly from this morning -- changeset 9270914d2bda.  (We can build a CAB file by hand from a .zip if the cab stuff isn't in place yet; that's not a big deal.)
Heh, well the CAB stuff just landed. Depends how like these changes in the meantime if you want to take that
http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-1.9.2/pushloghtml?fromchange=9270914d2bda&tochange=3ff8d644eedd
Comment on attachment 399984 [details] [diff] [review]
Title bar tweak to "Firefox 3.6 Preview"

Requesting r + a to land on a mozilla-1.9.2 release branch.
Attachment #399984 - Flags: review?(vladimir)
Attachment #399984 - Flags: approval1.9.2?
Attachment #399986 - Flags: review?(vladimir)
Attachment #399986 - Flags: checked-in?
Comment on attachment 399986 [details] [diff] [review]
Version bump to 3.6a2

Requesting r + a to land on a mozilla-1.9.2 release branch.
Attachment #399986 - Flags: checked-in? → approval1.9.2?
Attachment #400913 - Flags: review?(catlee)
Attachment #399986 - Flags: review?(vladimir)
Attachment #399986 - Flags: review+
Attachment #399986 - Flags: approval1.9.2?
Attachment #399986 - Flags: approval1.9.2+
Comment on attachment 399986 [details] [diff] [review]
Version bump to 3.6a2

r+a=me for CE release branch
Comment on attachment 399984 [details] [diff] [review]
Title bar tweak to "Firefox 3.6 Preview"

r+a=me for CE release branch
Attachment #399984 - Flags: review?(vladimir)
Attachment #399984 - Flags: review+
Attachment #399984 - Flags: approval1.9.2?
Attachment #399984 - Flags: approval1.9.2+
Attachment #400913 - Flags: review?(catlee) → review+
Comment on attachment 400913 [details] [diff] [review]
Automation config for 3.6a2

Belay that last comment, I used rebase to handle an upstream change, so the revision changed to
http://hg.mozilla.org/build/buildbot-configs/rev/ab1a36821ba6
Build is running, ETA 2 hours.
Group: mozilla-corporation-confidential
Great, thanks Nick!  Should we bump the version number on 1.9.2 to a3pre, for consistency?
I was thinking b1pre, but a3pre is more flexible. Pick one!

Build has popped out in 
 http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/3.6a2-candidates/build1/
nice nick.  i'll give it an install and look over tomorrow.
Hmm... the build config is missing --enable-faststart, which mozconfigs are used for this?  I thought it was in the one I saw earlier, but I may have confused it with --enable-faststripe :(
We used 
  http://hg.mozilla.org/build/buildbot-configs/file/3eb4d72c7834/mozilla2/wince/mozilla-1.9.2/release/mozconfig
which is the same as the nightly config except for the update channel and --enable-official-branding. If you want --enable-faststart then browser/installer/package-manifest.in will also need to include the files that produces.
What we want if 3.6b1 is confirmed as the next release, otherwise we should go to 3.6a3pre.
Attachment #401379 - Flags: review?(bhearsum)
Attachment #401379 - Flags: approval1.9.2?
Attachment #401379 - Flags: review?(bhearsum) → review+
Comment on attachment 401379 [details] [diff] [review]
Bump mozilla-1.9.2 to 3.6b1pre/1.9.2b1pre

a192=beltzner
Attachment #401379 - Flags: approval1.9.2? → approval1.9.2+
I am in the process of testing the build on Comment 31 but unfortunately after a browser freeze my device is bricked. Am reimaging now.
Build is running, Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WindowsCE 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2a2)
Gecko/20090920 Firefox/3.6a2. I have experienced a few crashes but the build is usable.
Marcia, can you reproduce any of those crashes?  Are they on specific sites?
So far from what I remember one crash happened when I was loading a Google doc. I believe the other crash had to do with loading hulu.com

(In reply to comment #35)
> Marcia, can you reproduce any of those crashes?  Are they on specific sites?
So far, haven't been able to repro a crash 100%.
Vlad, how are we doing here ?
Sorry, thought we resolved this -- we delivered build 2, and now we're just doing normal beta train builds here.
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/namoroka/alpha2/
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 15 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Product: mozilla.org → Release Engineering
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: