The QA team is still doing directed testing and we are collecting feedback on RC1. We've been triaging the bugs and so far have 10 bugs that look of the highest priority:
We are going to approve these to land on trunk so we can get regression and nightly testing on them. If we need to do an RC2 they'll be ready to go - if we ship RC1 we can get them in the 3.0.1. If you are an owner of one of this bugs your assistance in landing them would be much appreciated.
ONLY patches with approval1.9+ can land. We want to keep this to *critical* bugs only (e.g. common crashes, severe breakage of major functionality, etc) - if we have to do an RC2 the test/feedback cycle will be shorter than a dot release.
As Beltzner mentioned in an earlier email - we will make the go/no-go decision on an RC2 Tuesday of next week once we've wrapped all testing and evaluated feedback. This is just a set of speculative check-ins to reduce the time needed for an RC2 or 3.0.1 if we needed one.
> The QA team is still doing directed testing and we are collecting > feedback on RC1. We've been triaging the bugs and so far have 10 bugs > that look of the highest priority:
> We are going to approve these to land on trunk so we can get regression > and nightly testing on them. If we need to do an RC2 they'll be ready > to go - if we ship RC1 we can get them in the 3.0.1. If you are an > owner of one of this bugs your assistance in landing them would be much > appreciated.
> ONLY patches with approval1.9+ can land. We want to keep this to > *critical* bugs only (e.g. common crashes, severe breakage of major > functionality, etc) - if we have to do an RC2 the test/feedback cycle > will be shorter than a dot release.
What's the policy with checking into hg as well? Are these bugs landing in just CVS, and hg later, or should they land in both places at the same time?
This is Sarves from Sri Lanka and we are working on Firefox localization since Firefox 2.0. Our ta-LK language xpi is available in AMO public. Around 2000 downloads, but still we didn't get any complains.
We also put that into the Bugzilla. We would like to commit our localization and I have been requesting for ta-LK locale, but still I didn't get any reply. What should we do? how we can commit our pack... We would like to see ta-LK with Firefox 3.
> This is Sarves from Sri Lanka and we are working on Firefox > localization since Firefox 2.0. > Our ta-LK language xpi is available in AMO public. Around 2000 > downloads, but still we didn't get any complains.
> We also put that into the Bugzilla. > We would like to commit our localization and I have been requesting > for ta-LK locale, but still I didn't get any reply. > What should we do? how we can commit our pack... We would like to see > ta-LK with Firefox 3.
> Hope someone in this group may help on this..
Hello Sarves,
Thank you for your efforts for ta-LK localization.
However, this is not the right group to discuss l10n questions.
> This is Sarves from Sri Lanka and we are working on Firefox > localization since Firefox 2.0. > Our ta-LK language xpi is available in AMO public. Around 2000 > downloads, but still we didn't get any complains.
> We also put that into the Bugzilla. > We would like to commit our localization and I have been requesting > for ta-LK locale, but still I didn't get any reply. > What should we do? how we can commit our pack... We would like to see > ta-LK with Firefox 3.
> Hope someone in this group may help on this..
Hi Sarves,
sorry for the lag. We're still busy with the existing locales being in the endgame for Firefox 3.0.
Those locales that we're shipping partly went through really rough waters, due to us sending contradicting messages and docs being confusing or wrong.
The not-so-good answer to your question is, I don't have a satisfying answer for what it takes for you to ship on Firefox 3. Like, I can tell you that web services review and in-product pages are missing at least, but turning that into a statement that makes sense for new locales is pending. Most locales that are now up to ship in Firefox 3.0 are shipping Beta releases for up to half a year, and we're going back and forth over search engines and protocol handlers with some of them still. I bet that that's not the process you want to join.
We're currently working on fixing that, but as most of the team is flooded, that doesn't go as quickly as we'd love to.
The same apology goes out to the other locales in the queue, and of course to those that went through the back-and-forth.
Shawn Wilsher wrote: > What's the policy with checking into hg as well? Are these bugs landing > in just CVS, and hg later, or should they land in both places at the > same time?
> Cheers,
> Shawn
I'm not a decision maker, but I would guess that until mozilla-central is open to general check-ins the answer is "not without explicit approval".
Shawn Wilsher wrote: > What's the policy with checking into hg as well? Are these bugs landing > in just CVS, and hg later, or should they land in both places at the > same time?
To nuance bhearsum's answer: please land these in CVS only for the moment. The only things that should land in mozilla-central right now are things that have explicit approval from me, until we figure out what's going on with the performance regression.