Find updates menu item -> yellow screen of death
Дамјан Георгиевски
I'm running the macedonian Firefox 3.5rc1 now (Gecko/20090612) and when
I click on the "find updates" submenu in the Help menu I get the yellow
screen of death complaining about undefined entity in
chrome://mozapps/content/update/updates.xul
<label>&finishedPage.text;</label>
-----------^
Does this only happen to me??
--
дамјан ( http://softver.org.mk/damjan/ )
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan
Axel Hecht
> Hi all,
> I'm running the macedonian Firefox 3.5rc1 now (Gecko/20090612) and when
> I click on the "find updates" submenu in the Help menu I get the yellow
> screen of death complaining about undefined entity in
> chrome://mozapps/content/update/updates.xul
> <label>&finishedPage.text;</label>
> -----------^
>
> Does this only happen to me??
>
>
No, it happens to Cedric, too :-).
It happens rarely, though, a reference to &BrandShortName; sneaked in.
Filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=498753
I landed a fix. And oh my freakin god, I landed it on the relbranch, how
could that happen to that dumb sucker? Oh, right, that was me, nevermind.
Axel
Дамјан Георгиевски
>>
>>
>
> No, it happens to Cedric, too :-).
>
> It happens rarely, though, a reference to &BrandShortName; sneaked in.
> Filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=498753
Damn, I would've never noticed this
> I landed a fix. And oh my freakin god, I landed it on the relbranch,
> how could that happen to that dumb sucker? Oh, right, that was me,
> nevermind.
thanks ... what's the status of that commit now? is it entering rc1?
BTW. Just noticed there's a small error in the same string there ... can
I commit it now (just as to not forget it?) or I should wait.
--
дамјан ( http://softver.org.mk/damjan/ )
A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
Axel Hecht
>>> Does this only happen to me??
>>>
>>>
>> No, it happens to Cedric, too :-).
>>
>> Filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=498753
>
> Damn, I would've never noticed this
>
>
>> I landed a fix. And oh my freakin god, I landed it on the relbranch,
>> how could that happen to that dumb sucker? Oh, right, that was me,
>> nevermind.
>
> thanks ... what's the status of that commit now? is it entering rc1?
It's entering RC n, as joduinn calls it. It got into RC 2 build 1, which
is after the RC1 build 2 which we serve on the beta update channel and
which is before RC2 build 2 which we'll serve from the web (and the beta
update channel, of course). Got confused? Me too. It'll be in the RC we
ship on Friday (knock on wood).
> BTW. Just noticed there's a small error in the same string there ... can
> I commit it now (just as to not forget it?) or I should wait.
Sure, commit ahead.
Axel
Дамјан Георгиевски
>>> in. Filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=498753
>>
>> Damn, I would've never noticed this
>>
>>
>>> I landed a fix. And oh my freakin god, I landed it on the relbranch,
>>> how could that happen to that dumb sucker? Oh, right, that was me,
>>> nevermind.
>>
>> thanks ... what's the status of that commit now? is it entering rc1?
>
> It's entering RC n, as joduinn calls it. It got into RC 2 build 1,
> which is after the RC1 build 2 which we serve on the beta update
> channel and which is before RC2 build 2 which we'll serve from the web
> (and the beta update channel, of course). Got confused? Me too. It'll
> be in the RC we ship on Friday (knock on wood).
RC3 [1] still has the same error, even though the nightly[2] seems ok
[1] ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/3.5rc3/linux-
i686/mk/firefox-3.5rc3.tar.bz2
[2] ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/nightly/latest-mozilla-1.9.1-
l10n/firefox-3.5pre.mk.linux-i686.tar.bz2
Axel Hecht
CCing release-drivers as a pre-warning.
Wow, this sucks. I honestly don't know how we broke that, but we did.
Interestingly enough at various places, last but not least me. For
whichever reason, the change got backed out by the attachments in bug
499687. Really sorry for that.
What's the resolve? I'm afraid that at this point in time, we can't pull
the release for this bug. I see us having three ways forward:
- ship mk as is
- ship is at beta
- pull it as release and start shipping with 3.5.1
- only pull the manual update for 3.0.11 to 3.5
Some numbers on impact: mk in total has some 35k active daily users,
roughly 30k of those are on 3.0.11.
My personal take is "unwell for all of the above". "beta" doesn't really
make a whole lot of sense to me, as we know which bug we get. I don't
really like pulling mk either, though I think it'd be a good idea to
throttle the uptake on 3.5 at least for users that are not fine with
re-installing in case of doubt, which makes me suggest to
-- only pull the manual update.
Damjan, what's your take?
Again, I'm really sorry we have to make a call here in the first place.
Axel
Дамјан Георгиевски
>
> Wow, this sucks. I honestly don't know how we broke that, but we did.
> Interestingly enough at various places, last but not least me. For
> whichever reason, the change got backed out by the attachments in bug
> 499687. Really sorry for that.
>
> What's the resolve? I'm afraid that at this point in time, we can't
> pull the release for this bug. I see us having three ways forward:
>
> - ship mk as is
> - ship is at beta
> - pull it as release and start shipping with 3.5.1
> - only pull the manual update for 3.0.11 to 3.5
>
> Some numbers on impact: mk in total has some 35k active daily users,
> roughly 30k of those are on 3.0.11.
>
> My personal take is "unwell for all of the above". "beta" doesn't
> really make a whole lot of sense to me, as we know which bug we get. I
> don't really like pulling mk either, though I think it'd be a good
> idea to throttle the uptake on 3.5 at least for users that are not
> fine with re-installing in case of doubt, which makes me suggest to
>
> -- only pull the manual update.
>
> Damjan, what's your take?
With the build as it is, will auto-update from 3.5 to 3.5.1 work fine?
If yes, then I'm for "ship mk as is" and then wait for 3.5.1 to auto-
upgrade the 3.0.11 users (if I understand you correctly).
ps.
Didn't CC anyone, since I'm reading this on nntp
--
дамјан ( http://softver.org.mk/damjan/ )
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Axel Hecht
>> CCing release-drivers as a pre-warning.
>>
>> Wow, this sucks. I honestly don't know how we broke that, but we did.
>> Interestingly enough at various places, last but not least me. For
>> whichever reason, the change got backed out by the attachments in bug
>> 499687. Really sorry for that.
>>
>> What's the resolve? I'm afraid that at this point in time, we can't
>> pull the release for this bug. I see us having three ways forward:
>>
>> - ship mk as is
>> - ship is at beta
>> - pull it as release and start shipping with 3.5.1
>> - only pull the manual update for 3.0.11 to 3.5
>>
>> Some numbers on impact: mk in total has some 35k active daily users,
>> roughly 30k of those are on 3.0.11.
>>
>> My personal take is "unwell for all of the above". "beta" doesn't
>> really make a whole lot of sense to me, as we know which bug we get. I
>> don't really like pulling mk either, though I think it'd be a good
>> idea to throttle the uptake on 3.5 at least for users that are not
>> fine with re-installing in case of doubt, which makes me suggest to
>>
>> -- only pull the manual update.
>>
>> Damjan, what's your take?
>
>
> With the build as it is, will auto-update from 3.5 to 3.5.1 work fine?
> If yes, then I'm for "ship mk as is" and then wait for 3.5.1 to auto-
> upgrade the 3.0.11 users (if I understand you correctly).
beltzner caught that auto-update is not going to be fine, so we pulled
mk from the initial ship. Seth and build are going to digg into whether
we can create a one-off repack for mk. That's
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=501391, CCed you there.
Axel