Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

What is the branch/divergence point between mozilla-central and mozilla-2.0 ?

15 views
Skip to first unread message

Serge Gautherie

unread,
Mar 23, 2011, 6:56:23 PM3/23/11
to

I have not been following m-2.0 since it appeared (months/years ago iirc).
Now, I've just checked that (for example) some fixes I did recently in
m-c to support SeaMonkey 2.1 are not in m-2.0.
Then, I'm trying to figure out when the two started to diverge and it
doesn't look like there is a recent "MOZILLA_2_0_branch" tag in m-c.

Am I missing something ?
How can I "easily" find out what I need to explicitly land in m-2.0 too?

Thanks.


Ehsan Akhgari

unread,
Mar 23, 2011, 7:12:30 PM3/23/11
to Serge Gautherie, dev-pl...@lists.mozilla.org
On 11-03-23 6:56 PM, Serge Gautherie wrote:
>
> I have not been following m-2.0 since it appeared (months/years ago iirc).
> Now, I've just checked that (for example) some fixes I did recently in
> m-c to support SeaMonkey 2.1 are not in m-2.0.
> Then, I'm trying to figure out when the two started to diverge and it
> doesn't look like there is a recent "MOZILLA_2_0_branch" tag in m-c.

The lowest common denominator between the two branches is:

http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/290712e55ade
http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-2.0/rev/290712e55ade

Cheers,
Ehsan

L. David Baron

unread,
Mar 23, 2011, 7:14:05 PM3/23/11
to Serge Gautherie, dev-pl...@lists.mozilla.org
On Wednesday 2011-03-23 23:56 +0100, Serge Gautherie wrote:
> I have not been following m-2.0 since it appeared (months/years ago iirc).
> Now, I've just checked that (for example) some fixes I did recently
> in m-c to support SeaMonkey 2.1 are not in m-2.0.
> Then, I'm trying to figure out when the two started to diverge and
> it doesn't look like there is a recent "MOZILLA_2_0_branch" tag in
> m-c.

The last common changeset is:

changeset: 63324:e56ecd8b3a68
user: Ben Hearsum <bhea...@mozilla.com>
date: Thu Mar 03 14:09:19 2011 -0500
summary: No-op comment change to trigger Talos after talos.zip update. r=NPOTB a=NPOTB


I figured this out by pulling both into the same repository and
using "hg debugancestor" (and I checked that this is the common
ancestor of mozilla-central and mozilla-2.0 default and the common
ancestor of mozilla-central and mozilla-2.0 latest relbranch):

dbaron@fraser Linux (0) ~/builds/scratch/mozilla $ hg pull mozilla-central
pulling from ssh://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/
searching for changes
adding changesets
adding manifests
adding file changes
added 62 changesets with 224 changes to 173 files (+1 heads)
(run 'hg heads' to see heads, 'hg merge' to merge)
dbaron@fraser Linux (0) ~/builds/scratch/mozilla $ hg tip
changeset: 63697:4902d72f6072
tag: tip
user: Chris Pearce <ch...@pearce.org.nz>
date: Thu Mar 24 11:28:58 2011 +1300
summary: Bug 639391 - Ensure WebM GetBuffered() is threadsafe. r=kinetik

dbaron@fraser Linux (0) ~/builds/scratch/mozilla $ hg pull http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-2.0/
pulling from http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-2.0/
searching for changes
adding changesets
adding manifests
adding file changes
added 21 changesets with 20 changes to 7 files (+3 heads)
(run 'hg heads' to see heads, 'hg merge' to merge)
dbaron@fraser Linux (0) ~/builds/scratch/mozilla $ hg tip
changeset: 63718:80613eca87a0
branch: GECKO20_2011031715_RELBRANCH
tag: tip
user: ffxbld
date: Fri Mar 18 15:42:02 2011 -0700
summary: Added tag FIREFOX_4_0_RELEASE for changeset FIREFOX_4_0rc2_RELEASE. CLOSED TREE a=release

dbaron@fraser Linux (0) ~/builds/scratch/mozilla $ hg log -rdefault
changeset: 63714:afbc0b4fd618
parent: 63708:3d4c3670c0bd
user: Gervase Markham <ge...@gerv.net>
date: Fri Mar 18 11:36:57 2011 +0000
summary: Bug 642395 - further change to handling of bad certificates. r=kaie, a=beltzner. OK for CLOSED TREE.

dbaron@fraser Linux (0) ~/builds/scratch/mozilla $ hg debugancestor 80613eca87a0 4902d72f6072
63324:e56ecd8b3a68c158025207c5fd081d043e28f5ce
dbaron@fraser Linux (0) ~/builds/scratch/mozilla $ hg debugancestor afbc0b4fd618 4902d72f6072
63324:e56ecd8b3a68c158025207c5fd081d043e28f5ce
dbaron@fraser Linux (0) ~/builds/scratch/mozilla $ hg log -r63324
changeset: 63324:e56ecd8b3a68
user: Ben Hearsum <bhea...@mozilla.com>
date: Thu Mar 03 14:09:19 2011 -0500
summary: No-op comment change to trigger Talos after talos.zip update. r=NPOTB a=NPOTB


-David

--
L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/
Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/

Serge Gautherie

unread,
Mar 23, 2011, 7:14:44 PM3/23/11
to
Serge Gautherie wrote:

> Am I missing something ?
> How can I "easily" find out what I need to explicitly land in m-2.0 too?

My other goal is to use my local m-c as a base to create a local m-2.0,
and I don't know which changeset to stop duplication at...

Serge Gautherie

unread,
Mar 23, 2011, 7:53:12 PM3/23/11
to Ehsan Akhgari
Ehsan Akhgari wrote:

Good news is this changeset is tagged with 'THUNDERBIRD_3_3a3_BUILD1'
and 'THUNDERBIRD_3_3a3_RELEASE'.

Yet, shouldn't it be tagged with 'GECKO_2_0_BASE' too, as m-1.9.1 and
m-1.9.2 branches were done?

Ehsan Akhgari

unread,
Mar 23, 2011, 7:56:54 PM3/23/11
to Serge Gautherie, dev-pl...@lists.mozilla.org

The changeset dbaron mentioned (e56ecd8b3a68). After that you can edit
m-2.0/.hg/hgrc to point to the release branch, and pull as usual to get
the latest stuff on that branch.

Cheers,
Ehsan

Serge Gautherie

unread,
Mar 23, 2011, 8:00:20 PM3/23/11
to L. David Baron
L. David Baron wrote:

> On Wednesday 2011-03-23 23:56 +0100, Serge Gautherie wrote:
>>
>> Then, I'm trying to figure out when the two started to diverge and
>> it doesn't look like there is a recent "MOZILLA_2_0_branch" tag in
>> m-c.
>
> The last common changeset is:
>
> changeset: 63324:e56ecd8b3a68
> user: Ben Hearsum <bhea...@mozilla.com>
> date: Thu Mar 03 14:09:19 2011 -0500
> summary: No-op comment change to trigger Talos after talos.zip update. r=NPOTB a=NPOTB

In my local m-c, that's the changeset just after the
THUNDERBIRD_3_3a3_RELEASE one which Ehsan pointed at.

http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-2.0/log?rev=e56ecd8b3a68 and my
local m-c seem to agree on that.
(The next changeset differs.)

That changeset should probably be the one to be tagged...

Robert Kaiser

unread,
Mar 23, 2011, 9:03:28 PM3/23/11
to
Serge Gautherie schrieb:

> That changeset should probably be the one to be tagged...

That would probably be a good idea, can you file a bug for that?

Robert Kaiser


--
Note that any statements of mine - no matter how passionate - are never
meant to be offensive but very often as food for thought or possible
arguments that we as a community needs answers to. And most of the time,
I even appreciate irony and fun! :)

Serge Gautherie

unread,
Mar 23, 2011, 9:25:59 PM3/23/11
to Robert Kaiser
Robert Kaiser wrote:

> Serge Gautherie schrieb:
>>
>> That changeset should probably be the one to be tagged...
>
> That would probably be a good idea, can you file a bug for that?

Ehsan emailed me the same confirmation ;-)

I filed
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=644429
Add GECKO_2_0_BASE tag to m-c/m-2.1/m-2.0

0 new messages