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