Branch mechanics for Fennec 5.0
John O'Duinn
http://oduinn.com/blog/2011/05/05/branch-mechanics-for-fennec-5-0 to
make sure this is seen.
tl;dr: To deliver Fennec5.0 betas starting 17may, the new plan is to
backport Fennec code changes from mozilla-beta back to split repos and
and ship Fennec5.0 betas from the split repos using existing release
automation.
Details for the curious:
To ship Fennec5.0 on the same release cadence as Firefox5.0, on the
consolidated repos on mozilla-beta, requires:
a) changes to release automation to handle consolidated repos
b) remainder of buildbot0.7 -> buildbot0.8 migration - to streamline
release day mechanics.
These changes are on track for Fennec6, along with Firefox6, but we
cannot get these changes into production before 17may, in time for
Fennec5/Firefox5.
To ship a Fennec5.0 beta on the 17may date, the new proposed plan is to:
1. setup new mobile-5.0, mozilla-5.0 repos
2. for l10n, RelEng thinks we can point automation to the
l10n/mozilla-beta repos.
3. for sanity check, RelEng will build an early Fennec5.0beta1 before
17may, to make sure this infrastructure works.4. wait for the planned
drop from mozilla-aurora --> mozilla-beta on 17may
4. have mfinkle/blassey merge code from mozilla-beta to new mobile-5.0 &
mozilla-5.0 repos
5. have aki/lsblakk create Fennec5.0beta2...5.0betaN using existing
release automation.
RelEng will make a staging Fennec5.0beta build next week to verify all
this before 17may.
We will repeat this for every Fennec5.0beta until we get these
automation changes live in production. Current estimate is early June.
Whether we ship Fennec5.0 in this way depends on exact date the new
automation is ready - to be revisited.
NOTE: While there are currently no Fennec4.0.x releases scheduled, it is
important that we remain able to ship Fennec4.0.x chemspill releases if
needed. This plan does not impact our ability to do Fennec4.0.1 chemspills.
Hope all that makes sense - let me know if I missed anything or you have
questions. Also, see mfinkle's related post to mozilla.dev.planning.
John.
Axel Hecht
today and "we'll ship a beta" seems to be missing.
Axel
Mark Finkle
> So, how are we getting this localized? The section for that between
> today and "we'll ship a beta" seems to be missing.
The short answer is: by whatever means necessary.
The long answer is: We are working under the assumption that since we
are going to use the build automation used for Mobile 4.x branch, and
that is localized, then there must be some scenario in which we can
substitute the L10N repos used for mozilla-beta.
How we do the substitution is not yet know. For example, in order to
actually make the build, we are going to merge mozilla-beta into the
old mozilla-2.1 and mobile-2.0 repos (or create two new temporary
repos, but still create a world that works with the Mobile 4.x build
automation). We are open to exploring the same type of radical
solution for L10N as well.
Finkle
Aki Sasaki
> So, how are we getting this localized? The section for that between
> today and "we'll ship a beta" seems to be missing.
I'm not sure of the current status.
But, aiui, localizers have been localizing mozilla-aurora, and those
translations have been going to hg.m.o/releases/l10n/mozilla-aurora/LOCALE.
Once we go to mozilla-beta, those translations will be pushed to
hg.m.o/releases/l10n/mozilla-beta/LOCALE.
We are going to be building from the exact same source as mozilla-beta,
just pushed to different repos. The strings should be the same.
Therefore, if hg.m.o/releases/l10n/mozilla-beta/LOCALE is signed off
against mozilla-beta, they should also be signed off against these other
repos.
Could you let me know if there are other issues for localizing Fennec
against mozilla-aurora and mozilla-beta that I'm unaware of?
aki
Axel Hecht
One of the things I'd like to hear is that the folks that made that call
commit to localizers working on releases/l10n/mozilla-aurora towards beta.
That's not explicitly called out, and I'm out of luck with my
assumptions these days.
Axel