Firefox 4 Beta 7 branched; mozilla-central re-opened to blockers & approved checkins
Mike Beltzner
At yesterday's development meeting we discussed the pros and cons of continuing to block mozilla-central (nightly) development on the progress of the remaining beta 7 work. The benefit is clear, as more than 50 bugs have been waiting to land. The cost is that once we branch, we lose nightly testing coverage for the bits which will become beta 7. After evaluating with the JavaScript team, we do not believe that future Firefox 4 development work will mask effects from the outstanding beta 7 work, and as such believes that nightly testing on mozilla-central will provide sufficient coverage for the work that is also going to land in beta 7.
As such, we have re-opened the mozilla-central tree to:
* patches that fix bugs marked blocking2.0+
* patches that fix bugs marked blocking-fennec+
* patches that carry approval2.0+
* patches that block mozilla1.9.1 or mozilla1.9.2 releases
* patches that fix tests, bustage, or have no effect on the supported set of builds
The full set of rules is outlined at https://wiki.mozilla.org/Tree_Rules
To help us work through the backlog, checkins will be METERED until further notice. To put yourself in the queue to land, head over to https://wiki.mozilla.org/LandingQueue and add yourself to the list.
Any and all questions should be referred to the Sheriff in #developers on irc.mozilla.org, or this thread in mozilla.dev.planning.
cheers,
mike
johnjbarton
> Hey everyone,
...
> Any and all questions should be referred to the Sheriff in #developers on irc.mozilla.org, or this thread in mozilla.dev.planning.
Mike, I'd appreciate info on how this affects testers of FF 4.0, eg I
guess FF nightly will now not be 4.0 ? If so, will there be builds of
4.0b7 available?
jjb
Christian Legnitto
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/graph/55086?revcount=120
You'll see that the mozilla-central "default" is 4.0b8pre and the GECKO20b7pre_20101006_RELBRANCH is 4.0b7pre.
Nightly users will still track "trunk" aka the branch "default" in the mozilla-central repo, which is 4.0b8pre. The relbranch will likely stay as-is until we decide to release. When we do, the GECKO20b7pre_20101006_RELBRANCH will likely branch again into the b7 (not pre) relbranch. The updates created off that will then be released to users running 4.0b6.
Christian
> _______________________________________________
> dev-planning mailing list
> dev-pl...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
johnjbarton
> If you look here currently:
>
> http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/graph/55086?revcount=120
>
> You'll see that the mozilla-central "default" is 4.0b8pre and the GECKO20b7pre_20101006_RELBRANCH is 4.0b7pre.
Sorry I don't know what this part means for me. I am asking about the
outputs not the inputs: if the trunk nightly builds are 4.0b8pre where
is 4.0b7pre?
>
> Nightly users will still track "trunk" aka the branch "default" in the mozilla-central repo, which is 4.0b8pre. The relbranch will likely stay as-is until we decide to release. When we do, the GECKO20b7pre_20101006_RELBRANCH will likely branch again into the b7 (not pre) relbranch. The updates created off that will then be released to users running 4.0b6.
Perhaps I can ask my question in a different way. Current trunk has no
JS debug support. Some bugs are about to be fixed that will enable JS
debug, and these will require changes in Firebug. If I understand Mike's
post, the bug fixes will not arrive on FF 4.0 nightly build updates. Is
there another nightly build which will have these fixes?
jjb
Ben Hearsum
Hash: SHA1
On 10-10-07 10:22 AM, johnjbarton wrote:
> On 10/7/2010 1:52 AM, Christian Legnitto wrote:
>> If you look here currently:
>>
>> http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/graph/55086?revcount=120
>>
>> You'll see that the mozilla-central "default" is 4.0b8pre and the
>> GECKO20b7pre_20101006_RELBRANCH is 4.0b7pre.
>
> Sorry I don't know what this part means for me. I am asking about the
> outputs not the inputs: if the trunk nightly builds are 4.0b8pre where
> is 4.0b7pre?
4.0b7pre is on the branch Christian mentioned. There are no builds for it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iEYEARECAAYFAkyt2DUACgkQJE25Np0n+NsIIwCdHxTF/PH0WJ8R60ZnVUxTqzQu
FzEAn22SMBQ3zaIvN2HYjsKpoOT65hND
=iM2F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Kevin Dangoor
> Perhaps I can ask my question in a different way. Current trunk has no JS
> debug support. Some bugs are about to be fixed that will enable JS debug,
> and these will require changes in Firebug. If I understand Mike's post, the
> bug fixes will not arrive on FF 4.0 nightly build updates. Is there another
> nightly build which will have these fixes?
>
As I understand it, the fixes you're waiting on will land in both trunk
*and* the branch. Nightlies come from the trunk, so when the changes land
they will be available in nightly builds.
Kevin
--
Kevin Dangoor
work: http://mozilla.com/
email: k...@blazingthings.com
blog: http://www.BlueSkyOnMars.com
Mike Beltzner
> Mike, I'd appreciate info on how this affects testers of FF 4.0, eg I guess FF nightly will now not be 4.0 ? If so, will there be builds of 4.0b7 available?
That's a great question, and deference to Ben and Christian who've given the technical explanation, I'll give a little bit more of a human-parseable one :)
What we've done is created a repository which will be used to build Firefox 4 Beta 7, allowing us to land changes on mozilla-central which will be included in future milestones such as Beta 8. The nightly "Minefield" builds will continue to be built from mozilla-central, and will now carry the version number "4.0b8pre". The changes which are still required for Beta 7 will first land on mozilla-central (and thus become part of nightly builds) and then will also be committed to the new repository we created.
No nightly builds will be generated from this new repository, but once the remaining blockers have landed, we'll generate candidate builds for Firefox 4 Beta 7.
I hope that answers your questions.
cheers,
mike
Thomas Stache
> On 2010-10-06, at 11:36 PM, johnjbarton wrote:
>
>
Thanks Mike,
that sank in! ;)