Closed Bug 1649420 Opened 4 years ago Closed 4 years ago

Add ESR 78 to cross-channel

Categories

(Localization Infrastructure and Tools :: Administration / Setup, task)

Tracking

(Not tracked)

RESOLVED FIXED

People

(Reporter: Pike, Assigned: Pike)

References

Details

Attachments

(1 file)

We want to have ESR 78 on cross-channel. The repos and their aliases are up now, so let's get that done.

Attached patch add esr78 (deleted) — Splinter Review

This is my local patch, not sure if there's a good way to test this?

Attachment #9160346 - Flags: review?(francesco.lodolo)

Currently getting

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/runpy.py", line 174, in _run_module_as_main
    "__main__", fname, loader, pkg_name)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/runpy.py", line 72, in _run_code
    exec code in run_globals
  File "/home/flodolo/src/cross-channel-experimental/initial/cli/automate.py", line 85, in <module>
    for pid in sorted(pushes)
TypeError: string indices must be integers

I assume that's because the pushlog is completely empty?
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/comm-esr78/pushloghtml

Depends on: 1646065

I see comm-esr78 now has a pushlog, but this patch still fails. I've tried to put a few debug prints before the line where the code crashes, and realized the problem seems to be with mozilla-esr78 instead
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-esr78/json-pushes

releases/mozilla-esr78 84c0d49497b06dc02cfb89d39a56950dcf6e369f
releases/mozilla-esr78 {u'error': u"unknown revision '84c0d49497b06dc02cfb89d39a56950dcf6e369f'"}

pushlog_params['fromchange'] = latest.get(current_repo, '0000') gets a changeset that doesn't exist in the repository?

Comment on attachment 9160346 [details] [diff] [review] add esr78 I believe this require some code changes beyond the config.
Attachment #9160346 - Flags: review?(francesco.lodolo) → review-
Comment on attachment 9160346 [details] [diff] [review] add esr78 Review of attachment 9160346 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Any reason to put 78 before 68? It seems a bit counter intuitive. Now the patch runs as expected with hg.m.o fixed.
Attachment #9160346 - Flags: review- → review+

The trick is that new branches get their start from the branch that's before. So putting esr78 after esr68 would have picked the 68 revision as start for esr78, and this way, it's release.

Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 4 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: