Proposal for performing updates in the background

[Ehsan Akhgari]

(CCing dev.platform and dev.planning. Follow-ups to dev.platform please)

I've been working on a technical proposal on how we can implement background
updates for Firefox. The proposal is now at a stage which I want to get
feedback on. Please take a moment and read the proposal here: <
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Background_Updates>.

I'm interested in technical feedback in the proposal. In particular, please
speak up if you think there is something wrong with the proposal or if you
think it will break an existing feature in a way that I might not have
anticipated. As always, bikeshedding and off-topic comments are discouraged
(please pay specific attention to the Goals and Non-Goals sections). ;-)

Cheers,
--
Ehsan
<http://ehsanakhgari.org/>

[Jonas Sicking]

The proposal doesn't list "download and/or apply update while Firefox is not
running" as neither a goal or a non-goal.

Though based on the described solution it seems like a non-goal?

Personally I'd like to see us be able to do this, but I can understand if we
want to do this as a separate project.

Either way it seems worth being more explicit about.

/ Jonas

> _______________________________________________
> dev-planning mailing list
> dev-pl...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
>

[Anthony Hughes]

> If the user needs to prompted for some reason, we show that prompt
> at the normal time. (e.g, on idle). If the user declines, we bail out.

What will the opt-in mechanism be here? Do we wait forever for the user to click OK or Cancel? Do we opt-in on timeout? Do we opt-out on timeout?

Anthony Hughes
Quality Engineer
Mozilla Corporation

[Robert Strong]

It is the same as it is today when the user has to opt-in for what ever
reason to the update.

Robert

> _______________________________________________
> dev-platform mailing list
> dev-pl...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

[Ehsan Akhgari]

Thanks for mentioning this Jonas. This is definitely something that I would
like to see, but it is outside of the scope of this project. Therefore I
added it to the non-goals.

Cheers,
--
Ehsan
<http://ehsanakhgari.org/>

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Jonas Sicking <jo...@sicking.cc> wrote:

> The proposal doesn't list "download and/or apply update while Firefox is
> not running" as neither a goal or a non-goal.
>
> Though based on the described solution it seems like a non-goal?
>
> Personally I'd like to see us be able to do this, but I can understand if
> we want to do this as a separate project.
>
> Either way it seems worth being more explicit about.
>
> / Jonas
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 18, 2011, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan....@gmail.com>
> wrote:

[Robert O'Callahan]

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan....@gmail.com>wrote:

> (CCing dev.platform and dev.planning. Follow-ups to dev.platform please)
>
> I've been working on a technical proposal on how we can implement
> background
> updates for Firefox. The proposal is now at a stage which I want to get
> feedback on. Please take a moment and read the proposal here: <
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Background_Updates>.
>
> I'm interested in technical feedback in the proposal. In particular,
> please
> speak up if you think there is something wrong with the proposal or if you
> think it will break an existing feature in a way that I might not have
> anticipated. As always, bikeshedding and off-topic comments are
> discouraged
> (please pay specific attention to the Goals and Non-Goals sections). ;-)
>

Why is avoiding UAC prompts a non-goal? That seems like a pretty big problem
that we need to fix ASAP ... can we fix it without major changes to the
proposed design?

Rob
--
"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in
us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our
sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned,
we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us." [1 John 1:8-10]

[Robert Strong]

On 10/18/2011 3:52 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Ehsan Akhgari
> <ehsan....@gmail.com <mailto:ehsan....@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> (CCing dev.platform and dev.planning. Follow-ups to dev.platform
> please)
>
> I've been working on a technical proposal on how we can implement
> background
> updates for Firefox. The proposal is now at a stage which I want
> to get
> feedback on. Please take a moment and read the proposal here: <
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Background_Updates>.
>
> I'm interested in technical feedback in the proposal. In
> particular, please
> speak up if you think there is something wrong with the proposal
> or if you
> think it will break an existing feature in a way that I might not have
> anticipated. As always, bikeshedding and off-topic comments are
> discouraged
> (please pay specific attention to the Goals and Non-Goals
> sections). ;-)
>
>
> Why is avoiding UAC prompts a non-goal? That seems like a pretty big
> problem that we need to fix ASAP ... can we fix it without major
> changes to the proposed design?

Because that is being done separately from this work.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Silent_Update_OS_Dialogs

Robert

[Justin Dolske]

On 10/18/11 1:42 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:

> I've been working on a technical proposal on how we can implement background
> updates for Firefox. The proposal is now at a stage which I want to get
> feedback on. Please take a moment and read the proposal here:<
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Background_Updates>.

Seems like we need to change the user prompting for goal #3 ("Being able
to apply a newer update ...").

The default flow should be:

1) Periodic update timer fires. Check for update.
2) Update downloads
3) Update applied to FIREFOX_NEW (blowing away and older,
pending update).
4) Start timer to notify user if they don't restart in <24hr.
5) User quits browser, relaunches
6) FIREFOX_NEW switcheraoo, updated version running.

Options to enable more control (by popular demand):

2.5) "prompt me before downloading"
3.5) "ask me before updating"

Why? We shouldn't prompt before downloading, because if multiple updates
are found during a long session it's confusing. (For example, I am often
multiple nightlies behind.) If users are concerned about bandwidth
issues or strict control, they can enable a prompt before the download.

I suppose 3.5 is technically a non-goal, but I list it for completeness.

Justin

[Robert Strong]

I think that scenario is taken care of by:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=353804

I found a fairly serious bug with the patch in the bug applied but
haven't had a chance to investigate yet.

>
> I suppose 3.5 is technically a non-goal, but I list it for completeness.
>
> Justin

[Robert Strong]

Hi Ehsan,

Since the proposal includes several pre-existing steps I think it would
be a good thing to call out specifically what is being changed in each
step. This way it is clear what is being proposed and what already
exists which will make the feedback focus on the changes being made
especially for the upcoming security review. It would also be helpful to
call out the other features or bugs that already exist that address the
non goals section.

Thanks,
Robert

On 10/18/2011 10:42 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> (CCing dev.platform and dev.planning. Follow-ups to dev.platform please)
>

> I've been working on a technical proposal on how we can implement
> background updates for Firefox. The proposal is now at a stage which
> I want to get feedback on. Please take a moment and read the proposal
> here: <https://wiki.mozilla.org/Background_Updates>.
>

> I'm interested in technical feedback in the proposal. In particular,
> please speak up if you think there is something wrong with the
> proposal or if you think it will break an existing feature in a way
> that I might not have anticipated. As always, bikeshedding and
> off-topic comments are discouraged (please pay specific attention to
> the Goals and Non-Goals sections). ;-)
>

> Cheers,
> --
> Ehsan
> <http://ehsanakhgari.org/>

--
Cheers,
Robert Strong

[Jean-Marc Desperrier]

Robert Strong a écrit :

>> Why is avoiding UAC prompts a non-goal?

> Because that is being done separately from this work.
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Silent_Update_OS_Dialogs

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Background_Updates should be updated to have a
link to that project, where UAC is listed as non-goal.

[Ehsan Akhgari]

Done. Hopefully this will make the proposal less confusing.

--
Ehsan
<http://ehsanakhgari.org/>

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Robert Strong <rst...@mozilla.com> wrote:

> Hi Ehsan,
>
> Since the proposal includes several pre-existing steps I think it would be
> a good thing to call out specifically what is being changed in each step.
> This way it is clear what is being proposed and what already exists which
> will make the feedback focus on the changes being made especially for the
> upcoming security review. It would also be helpful to call out the other
> features or bugs that already exist that address the non goals section.
>
> Thanks,
> Robert
>
>
> On 10/18/2011 10:42 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
>
>> (CCing dev.platform and dev.planning. Follow-ups to dev.platform please)
>>
>> I've been working on a technical proposal on how we can implement
>> background updates for Firefox. The proposal is now at a stage which I want
>> to get feedback on. Please take a moment and read the proposal here: <

>> https://wiki.mozilla.org/**Background_Updates<https://wiki.mozilla.org/Background_Updates>