989871 - Change the blocking-b2g flag from 1.5 to 2.0

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(bugzilla.mozilla.org :: Administration, task)

Description

[Kai-Chih Hu [:khu]]

The next version of Firefox OS was changed from 1.5 to 2.0. 

Can you help to change 2 values in blocking-b2g flag from "1.5?" and "1.5+" into "2.0?" and "2.0+"? Thanks.

Comment 1

[bhavana bajaj [:bajaj]]

:glob, jfyi we have been using this flag already, so would this change be applied across existing bugs:

sample query : http://mzl.la/1gS3dMK

Comment 2

[bhavana bajaj [:bajaj]]

(In reply to bhavana bajaj [:bajaj] from comment #1)
> :glob, jfyi we have been using this flag already, so would this change be
> applied across existing bugs:
bugs: -> bugs?(meant to be a question here :)
> 
> sample query : http://mzl.la/1gS3dMK

Comment 3

[:glob ✱]

(In reply to bhavana bajaj [:bajaj] from comment #1)
> :glob, jfyi we have been using this flag already, so would this change be
> applied across existing bugs:
>
> sample query : http://mzl.la/1gS3dMK

renaming the value from 1.5 to 2.0 means that any bug current set to any of the 1.5 values will instead show as 1.5.  this change will not update a bug's last modified timestamp, nor will it generate bugmail.

of course it will break any existing query for 1.5 bugs :)


do you still want to go ahead with this change?

Comment 4

[Joe Cheng [:jcheng] (please needinfo)]

if it breaks current queries, it seems to make sense to keep 1.5 for now

ni? Clee
IIRC, this version change will require certain features to land before we can call it 2.0. it's probably too early to make such change

Comment 5

[Chris Lee [:clee]]

Discussed with Engineering/RM and we will move forward with the flag change to 2.0.  Thanks.

Comment 6

[bhavana bajaj [:bajaj]]

Thanks Chris!

so :glob my plan is to file a bug to create blockin-b2g:2.0+ and 2.0? and then mass modify all the existing 1.5? and 1.5+ to  appropriate 2.0 flag . Once that happens we can remove the 1.5 flags requested in this bug. I'll give an official go on this bug once ready.

Below are the queries we'll need to mass modify once the 2.0 flags are up :
* http://mzl.la/QAF3vu (1.5+ -> 2.0+)
* http://mzl.la/QAFfel (1.5? -> 2.0?)

We will also need to create a status-b2g-v2.0 which replaces the current status-b2g-v1.5 and mark the right status for the the following:
* http://mzl.la/QAFG8f

:glob, I will file a separate bug for status flag and add it here.

Joe,

I am hoping the plan above should be enough to restore all the existing queries which I had pointed. let me know if you see anything missing here.

NI :jsmith from QA to see if any case was missing and review above.

Comment 7

[Jason Smith [:jsmith]]

This sounds sane to me.

Comment 8

[David Lawrence [:dkl]]

(In reply to bhavana bajaj [:bajaj] from comment #6)
> Thanks Chris!
> 
> so :glob my plan is to file a bug to create blockin-b2g:2.0+ and 2.0? and
> then mass modify all the existing 1.5? and 1.5+ to  appropriate 2.0 flag .
> Once that happens we can remove the 1.5 flags requested in this bug. I'll
> give an official go on this bug once ready.
> 
> Below are the queries we'll need to mass modify once the 2.0 flags are up :
> * http://mzl.la/QAF3vu (1.5+ -> 2.0+)
> * http://mzl.la/QAFfel (1.5? -> 2.0?)
> 
> We will also need to create a status-b2g-v2.0 which replaces the current
> status-b2g-v1.5 and mark the right status for the the following:
> * http://mzl.la/QAFG8f
> 
> :glob, I will file a separate bug for status flag and add it here.
> 
> Joe,
> 
> I am hoping the plan above should be enough to restore all the existing
> queries which I had pointed. let me know if you see anything missing here.
> 
> NI :jsmith from QA to see if any case was missing and review above.

bhavana, as glob mentioned in comment #3, we can simply rename the current values from 1.5 to 2.0 with the need to create new values and move the old ones over. The DB used IDs internally and just changing the user facing name will not change the ID. The only downside is that the bug history will still show the change to the 1.5 value originally as well as the breaking of stored queries as glob mentioned.

dkl

Comment 9

[:glob ✱]

i had a quick discussion with :bajaj over irc to clarify some finer points here.

while the proposal in comment 6 will work, the end result will leave us in the same place as if the 1.5 value was renamed to 2.0 -- all saved searches, bookmarks, dashboards, etc that query for the 1.5 values will need to be updated to 2.0.

in light of that it would be simpler to rename the value and call it done.

i explained dkl's concern with regards to bug history showing different values than the bug's current value, and that looks like a hit we'll have to take here.

:bajaj - can you confirm the course of action will be to rename 1.5 to 2.0 as originally requested?

Comment 10

[bhavana bajaj [:bajaj]]

(In reply to Byron Jones ‹:glob› from comment #9)
> i had a quick discussion with :bajaj over irc to clarify some finer points
> here.
> 
> while the proposal in comment 6 will work, the end result will leave us in
> the same place as if the 1.5 value was renamed to 2.0 -- all saved searches,
> bookmarks, dashboards, etc that query for the 1.5 values will need to be
> updated to 2.0.
> 
> in light of that it would be simpler to rename the value and call it done.
> 
> i explained dkl's concern with regards to bug history showing different
> values than the bug's current value, and that looks like a hit we'll have to
> take here.
> 
> :bajaj - can you confirm the course of action will be to rename 1.5 to 2.0
> as originally requested?

Thanks :glob, given renaming leave's us at the same state as the plan in comment #6, lets go ahead with that option if easier.

Request here is to rename blockin-b2g:1.5+,1.5? -> 2.0+,2.0? and status-b2g-v1.5 --> status-b2g-v2.0

Once this happens I'll give a shout-out to folks so their dashboard's can catch up with this change.

Comment 11

[:glob ✱]

unfortunately it looks like renaming a value doesn't automatically update the bugs.
i've filed bug 991477 and will work on that today.

Comment 12

[bhavana bajaj [:bajaj]]

:glob, any eta here ? If its going to take too long for dependencies to resolve then lets go with comment #6 ?

Comment 13

[:glob ✱]

(In reply to bhavana bajaj [:bajaj] from comment #12)
> :glob, any eta here ? If its going to take too long for dependencies to
> resolve then lets go with comment #6 ?

i have a patch waiting for review on bug 991477 which i'm expecting to be live this week.

Comment 14

[:glob ✱]

1.5 has been renamed to 2.0.

Comment 15

[Maria Angeles Oteo (:oteo)]

Project flag: 2.0 is already available in bugzilla but I can not see tracking flag status-b2g-v2.0 (only status-b2g-v1.5), is that change handled in other bug? (Bug 991477 seems to be resolved too)
Thanks

Comment 16

[:glob ✱]

(In reply to Maria Angeles Oteo (:oteo) from comment #15)
> Project flag: 2.0 is already available in bugzilla but I can not see
> tracking flag status-b2g-v2.0 (only status-b2g-v1.5), is that change handled
> in other bug? 

we haven't had any requests to create the tracking or status 2.0 flags.
if required, please file a new bug for that.

Comment 17

[Maria Angeles Oteo (:oteo)]

> we haven't had any requests to create the tracking or status 2.0 flags.
> if required, please file a new bug for that.

Ok, requested the change in  Bug 994714, thanks!