574149 - Offer an additional update prompt for 1.6.x users on 10.4+

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Camino Graveyard :: General, defect)

Description

[Smokey Ardisson (offline for a while; not following bugs - do not email)]

[4:16pm] ardissone: what do we need to do in order to do that?
[4:17pm] smorgan: Clone the 2.0.3 definition, tweak it to apply to 1.6-only (I forget what the syntax is; I'd have to look it up), and then write a description with flashing orange on purple
[4:17pm] smorgan: Or whatever we are doing to draw attention to it
[4:18pm] smorgan: We'll want to keep it tracking the latest release, of course
[4:18pm] smorgan: So when people give in, they don't immediately have to update again
[4:19pm] ardissone: i can add it to the release checklist once it's there
[4:19pm] smorgan: Oh, and we should make 2.0.3+ be 2.0 only once we have this
[4:19pm] smorgan: So we are sure we serve the right one to 1.6 users
[4:19pm] ardissone: mhm
[4:20pm] ardissone: is there a value for that currently?
[4:20pm] ardissone: we're not currently setting something like MinCmVersion, only MinOSVersion
[4:21pm] smorgan: I think so, let me check
[4:21pm] ardissone: i see it
[4:21pm] ardissone: MinCaminoVersionString?
[4:21pm] smorgan: That's the one
[4:21pm] smorgan: Oh, but there's no max
[4:22pm] smorgan: We'll need that as part of this then

Comment 1

[Stuart Morgan]

Attachment: Update script support

Adds MaxCaminoVersionString support to the script. Also adds some file-level documentation to make it easier to answer questions about what we can and can't do easier in the future ;)

Comment 2

[Smokey Ardisson (offline for a while; not following bugs - do not email)]

Comment on attachment 456769 [details] [diff] [review]
Update script support

r=me

Comment 3

[Stuart Morgan]

Landed http://hg.mozilla.org/camino/rev/3f80e7ea0bea

Comment 4

[Stuart Morgan]

Landed DescriptionBase support (as discussed in irc) as http://hg.mozilla.org/camino/rev/7a9104fe4371

Comment 5

[Smokey Ardisson (offline for a while; not following bugs - do not email)]

To recap:

0) We're essentially creating a "fake update" update channel for 1.6.x users on 10.4+

1) Generally, the 2.0.$V.update and 2.0.$V-ML.update files will need a MinCaminoVersionString of 2.0, to make sure they don't win for 1.6.x users (a higher Version in the fake updates will temporarily eliminate the need to do this when we want to trigger additional fake updates).

2) 2.0.fake.update and 2.0.fake-ML.update need to set:

MinCaminoVersionString = 1.6
MaxCaminoVersionString = 1.7
DescriptionBase = 2.0.fake

To push an additional notification after releasing a new 2.0.$V version, rev the Version in the fake update definitions.

3) The description for the fake update should have the base filename specified in the fake update's definition files' DescriptionBase key, e.g. 2.0.fake-en in this example.

4) When releasing a new 2.0.$V version, copy the changed keys from the new 2.0.$V/-ML definitions to the fake ones, in order to keep update offers in sync.

Comment 6

[Smokey Ardisson (offline for a while; not following bugs - do not email)]

(In reply to comment #5)
> To push an additional notification after releasing a new 2.0.$V version, rev
> the Version in the fake update definitions.

This is to get around the "Skip this version" option in Sparkle; it's tied to the Version key.

Comment 7

[Smokey Ardisson (offline for a while; not following bugs - do not email)]

These changes plus working fake updates are currently staged at update-check-test.

What we need to do yet:

1) Decide on scary text and colors for the fake update description.
2) Decide if we want to localize the scary text (the bulk of the laggards are English, so we probably want to just push now, but it's also probably worth getting the text translated during the 2.0.4 l10n cycle).
3) Fix up the 2.0.3/2.0.3-ML.update files on the production update-check.
4) Add the definitions and description(s) for the fake update.
5) Update update-check to current code.

Given our sad/comical confusion all evening, I don't think we want to do anything more than 1 and 2 tonight ;)

Comment 8

[Smokey Ardisson (offline for a while; not following bugs - do not email)]

Attachment: Screenshot of update window

Here's the text/HTML we're going to go with:

<h1 style="color: #980000; text-align: center;">WARNING</h1>
<p>The version of Camino you are currently using is no longer supported.  It is very old and has many bugs that are fixed in Camino 2. <b style="color: #980000;">Using an out-of-date browser leaves you vulnerable to attack by malicious sites.</b> Please upgrade to Camino 2.0.3 now.</p>
<p>For details, see the <a href="http://caminobrowser.org/releases/2.0.3/">release notes</a>.</p>

Per irc, we'll push this fake update on Tuesday.

Comment 9

[Smokey Ardisson (offline for a while; not following bugs - do not email)]

(In reply to comment #8)
> Per irc, we'll push this fake update on Tuesday.

Pushed.

Filed bug 578421 on getting the new description translated.

Comment 10

[Smokey Ardisson (offline for a while; not following bugs - do not email)]

Initial results are mixed; there are declines in some categories without corresponding rises in others.  There does seem to be some decline in 10.4+ users on 1.6, though, so we're getting rid of them in some manner :P

Comment 11

[Stuart Morgan]

It looks to me like there was a rise in 2.0.3 users, and no obvious drop in overall pings.

Comment 12

[Smokey Ardisson (offline for a while; not following bugs - do not email)]

OK.  I was looking mostly at the 7 "by-version-and-OS" columns, and while there were noticeable declines in 1.6 10.4/5/6, I didn't see corresponding rises in 2.0 10.4/5/6.  In the percents table, though, it did look like the % of users on 1.6 declined (and on 2.0 increased) for each of those 3 OSes :P