Confirmed users
2,595
edits
SeaMonkey/StatusMeetings/2016-03-15: Difference between revisions
SeaMonkey/StatusMeetings/2016-03-15 (view source)
Revision as of 13:47, 15 March 2016
, 15 March 2016→Release Train
Philip Chee (talk | contribs) |
Philip Chee (talk | contribs) m (→Release Train) |
||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
=== Release Train === | === Release Train === | ||
* Looks like ewong has managed to push 2.40 to the release servers at least for 2.40. | * Looks like ewong has managed to push 2.40 to the release servers at least for 2.40. | ||
Discussion: | |||
* KaiRo: We should get a 2.42 release done based on Gecko 45 ESR and then only concentrate on getting nightly to build and run well and ignore everything in between for the moment. We can then do as many 2.42.x security updates based on ESR as we want before we get something out of nightly that is in good shape again. | |||
* Everyone agreed to skip 2.41. | |||
* Chatzilla locale generation still broken. | |||
Carried forward from discussion at last meeting: | Carried forward from discussion at last meeting: | ||
* '''IanN''' suggests we should follow the Thunderbird release model, doing releases off the ESR-* branch but also the occasional comm-beta "release". L10N Translations might be problematic however '''rsx11m''' says using ESR would be "safer" with regard to more stability on releases and not having to cope immediately with bustages from mozilla side, but may require some "deal" to get l10n-relevant minor patches into the releases before the next ESR branch is coming. If you have a patch that applies cleanly from comm-beta to comm-esr45, translations should be done already (of course, that's just simple patches such as label changes or adding a checkbox). '''rsx11m''' would go with {comm,mozilla}-esr45 and merge any "safe" patches from comm-beta but that may need some talking to l10n if string changes are involved. | * '''IanN''' suggests we should follow the Thunderbird release model, doing releases off the ESR-* branch but also the occasional comm-beta "release". L10N Translations might be problematic however '''rsx11m''' says using ESR would be "safer" with regard to more stability on releases and not having to cope immediately with bustages from mozilla side, but may require some "deal" to get l10n-relevant minor patches into the releases before the next ESR branch is coming. If you have a patch that applies cleanly from comm-beta to comm-esr45, translations should be done already (of course, that's just simple patches such as label changes or adding a checkbox). '''rsx11m''' would go with {comm,mozilla}-esr45 and merge any "safe" patches from comm-beta but that may need some talking to l10n if string changes are involved. | ||
| Line 63: | Line 67: | ||
<!-- I leave it up to Ratty and ewong to update the rest on the 2.40 release --> | <!-- I leave it up to Ratty and ewong to update the rest on the 2.40 release --> | ||
** Updating failed due to PEBKAC. Currently rectifying this issue. | ** Updating failed due to PEBKAC. Currently rectifying this issue. | ||
* Merges were performed as scheduled on March 7: | * Merges were performed as scheduled on March 7: | ||
** comm-release default is now on SM 2.42. | ** comm-release default is now on SM 2.42. | ||