830886 - Please stage ESR10.*->ESR17.0.2 updates, and block unsupported OSs

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Release Engineering :: Release Requests, defect)

Description

[Alex Keybl [:akeybl]]

Please stage ESR10.0.*->ESR17.0.2 updates for early testing. Note that the following system requirement changes have been made, and should be blocked wherever possible:

* Windows 2000 is no longer supported
* Windows XP <SP2 is no longer supported
* Mac OS X 10.5 is no longer supported
* GTK+ requirement was bumped to 2.18 or higher
* GLib requirement was bumped to 2.22 or higher

The final updates that will be pushed to production will be ESR10.0.*->ESR17.0.3, fyi. We just want to get early testing around the major version bump, to prevent late surprises.

Comment 2

[Nick Thomas [:nthomas] (UTC+12)]

(In reply to Alex Keybl [:akeybl] from comment #0)
> * Windows 2000 is no longer supported
> * Windows XP <SP2 is no longer supported
> * Mac OS X 10.5 is no longer supported
> * GTK+ requirement was bumped to 2.18 or higher
> * GLib requirement was bumped to 2.22 or higher

All of this is already configured and live, described by http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/webtools/aus/xml/inc/config-dist.php#318, except that GLib can only be approximated by GTK+. The format there is to give a minimum version were updates are *blocked* for given OS strings. QA should certainly verify that it's working though.

Comment 3

[u279076]

Please let me know when and where these updates are staged. I will be out from Jan 20-28 so will get Softvision to do some broad testing. I'll publish the results when I get back. If there's a sense of urgency here, I'll have to ask Juan to coordinate.

Please advise.

Comment 4

[[e-mail] (:bhearsum)]

(In reply to Anthony Hughes, Mozilla QA (:ashughes) from comment #3)
> Please let me know when and where these updates are staged. I will be out
> from Jan 20-28 so will get Softvision to do some broad testing. I'll publish
> the results when I get back. If there's a sense of urgency here, I'll have
> to ask Juan to coordinate.
> 
> Please advise.

It might be easiest to do this closer to release time (let's say, having staged updates published on Feb 7), as long as that's OK with everyone. Doing so would lower the chance of us staging something and then doing something different as part of the release. Would appreciate an explicitly yay/nay from both of you, Alex & Anthony.

Comment 5

[u279076]

My only concern would be that leaving it too close to release will not leave enough time for testing and fixing any issues found. I would prefer to do this sooner rather than later.

Comment 6

[[e-mail] (:bhearsum)]

(In reply to Anthony Hughes, Mozilla QA (:ashughes) from comment #5)
> My only concern would be that leaving it too close to release will not leave
> enough time for testing and fixing any issues found. I would prefer to do
> this sooner rather than later.

Okay, we can get these done sooner. Will update with a better ETA later.

Comment 7

[Nick Thomas [:nthomas] (UTC+12)]

From akeybl on IRC, it's ok to just do a complete update here since we don't have partials generated. We should set partials to 'Firefox-17.0.2esr-build3,Firefox-10.0.12esr-build1' when we build 17.0.3esr though.

Comment 8

[Nick Thomas [:nthomas] (UTC+12)]

Attachment: [tools] guess at patcher config

This should do what we want but untested

Comment 9

[[e-mail] (:bhearsum)]

(In reply to Nick Thomas [:nthomas] from comment #8)
> Created attachment 703616 [details]
> [tools] guess at patcher config
> 
> This should do what we want but untested

This seems to have worked fine, modulo bug 833034. I should have snippets up shortly.

Comment 10

[[e-mail] (:bhearsum)]

OK, these updates are available now on "esrtest". Gritty details on producing them on buildbot-master36:
python26 tools/scripts/updates/create-snippets.py --config esr-updates.cfg --checksums-dir checksums --snippet-dir aus2 --test-snippet-dir aus2.test -v
find aus2.test -type d -name releasetest -exec rm -rf {} \;
rsync  -e 'ssh -i /home/cltbld/.ssh/ffxbld_dsa' -av aus2.test/  [e-mail]:/opt/aus2/snippets/staging/Firefox-10.0-to-17.0-esr-initial-test

And then on aus3-staging, I ran pushsnip to push them. I've done some initial tests and everything seems to be in order. Still waiting for full results from update verify.

Comment 11

[[e-mail] (:bhearsum)]

Juan, Anthony says to coordinate with you while he's gone. We're now ready to test 10.0 ESR -> 17.0.2esr updates on the "esrtest" channel. All 10.0 esr versions (10.0 through 10.0.12) should receive a complete update to 17.0.2esr. Let me know if you have any questions.

Comment 12

[[e-mail] (:bhearsum)]

Our update verify tests passed on all platforms. Note that this doesn't test the in-application updater, so QA's tests are still needed.

Comment 13

[Nick Thomas [:nthomas] (UTC+12)]

Could you let me know where I can take a look at these logs ? I'm curious if there are any files we should be adding to removed-files.in.

Comment 14

[[e-mail] (:bhearsum)]

Attachment: linux32 verify log

Note that there's partial "failures" here because I didn't remove that test from the update verify config I used. These are ignorable.

Comment 15

[[e-mail] (:bhearsum)]

Attachment: linux64 verify log

Comment 16

[[e-mail] (:bhearsum)]

Attachment: win32 verify log

Comment 17

[[e-mail] (:bhearsum)]

Attachment: mac verify log

Comment 18

[Matt Wobensmith [:mwobensmith][:matt:]]

Update testing via esrtest channel was successful. All supported platforms were able to upgrade from 10.0, 10.0.11 and 10.0.12 to 17.0.2, using a wide range of locales per platform.

In addition, for unsupported platforms, manual testing of Win2K and WinXP<SP2 were successful. Builds 10.0.x<10.0.12 were upgraded to 10.0.12, and none were upgraded to 17.0.2. 

Also, on unsupported platforms Mac 10.5 and Linux with GTK<2.18, no upgrades to 17.0.2 were completed, as expected.

Comment 19

[Nick Thomas [:nthomas] (UTC+12)]

Thanks for the logs Ben, they look pretty clean.

(In reply to Matt Wobensmith from comment #18)
> In addition, for unsupported platforms, manual testing of Win2K and
> WinXP<SP2 were successful. Builds 10.0.x<10.0.12 were upgraded to 10.0.12,
> and none were upgraded to 17.0.2. 

The updating to 10.0.12 part of this sounds like esr, rather than esrtest. Otherwise sounds good, thanks for testing.

Comment 20

[[e-mail] (:bhearsum)]

(In reply to Nick Thomas [:nthomas] from comment #19)
> Thanks for the logs Ben, they look pretty clean.
> 
> (In reply to Matt Wobensmith from comment #18)
> > In addition, for unsupported platforms, manual testing of Win2K and
> > WinXP<SP2 were successful. Builds 10.0.x<10.0.12 were upgraded to 10.0.12,
> > and none were upgraded to 17.0.2. 
> 
> The updating to 10.0.12 part of this sounds like esr, rather than esrtest.
> Otherwise sounds good, thanks for testing.

I would be good to get the unsupported platforsm part retested, just to make sure nothing crazy is going on. Matt, can you do that, and confirm that you're doing it on esrtest rather than esr?

Comment 21

[Matt Wobensmith [:mwobensmith][:matt:]]

Thanks Nick/Ben. Good catch.

I re-ran tests on Win2K, esrtest channel, and it's fine. No upgrade whatsoever for 10.x ESR.

Still working on WinXP<SP2.

Comment 22

[[e-mail] (:bhearsum)]

Thanks Matt, I think we're all done here now, unless Nick found something for removed-files.