Closed Bug 622979 Opened 15 years ago Closed 15 years ago

Update android:versionCode in AndroidManifest.xml in branded builds

Categories

(Firefox for Android Graveyard :: General, defect)

ARM
Android
defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

(fennec2.0b4+)

VERIFIED FIXED
Tracking Status
fennec 2.0b4+ ---

People

(Reporter: mozilla, Assigned: blassey)

Details

Attachments

(1 file)

http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/969691cfe40e/embedding/android/AndroidManifest.xml.in#l6 The versionCode needs to be incremented for us to release a same-version (?) org.mozilla.firefox to the Android Market. Per IRC around 4.0b3 build 3, Stuart and I prefer to have this actually not be an incremented integer, but some variable (env ANDROIDVERSIONCODE ?) that defaults to buildid if not set. Buildid should take care of ordinary cases; overriding via that variable will allow us to work around any extraordinary cases. I'm not entirely sure if this needs to be incremented when we're pushing a new version, but it would probably be safest to have this in place before beta 4.
Also, I'm stating "in branded builds", but it probably won't hurt to set this to buildid in non-branded builds as well.
tracking-fennec: --- → ?
tracking-fennec: ? → 2.0b4+
(In reply to comment #1) > Also, I'm stating "in branded builds", but it probably won't hurt to set this > to buildid in non-branded builds as well. I thought so too, bug buildid is too big to be contained in a 32bit unsigned int. I can check in ANDROID_VERSION_CODE which defaults to 1, but the releng scripts will have to increment and set that for each release build. Or we could truncate it to YYYYMMDDHH. Assuming we don't spin more than one release build in an hour that should work, any objections?
Assignee: nobody → blassey.bugs
I think YYYYMMDDHH will work as a branded default.
Attached patch patchSplinter Review
this implements YYYYMMDDHH as a default. It can be over-ridden by setting ANDROID_VERSION_CODE.
Attachment #501347 - Flags: review?(doug.turner)
is it better to just have a MOZ_BUILD_DATE exported?
(In reply to comment #5) > is it better to just have a MOZ_BUILD_DATE exported? I don't think it matters, it's only used twice on any given platform
Attachment #501347 - Flags: review?(doug.turner) → review+
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 15 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Is there a way for us to verify this?
Verified by inspecting the source code.
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: