You could have just attached these to bug 106386 (and the first two don't need review since they only touch comments).

ghendricks, patch Dv1 affects Testopia. Do you want to check it in yourself?

Thanks, I have applied it to the Testopia base.

Comment on attachment 288021 [details] [diff] [review] (Cv1) </security/manager/pki/resources/content/*> I agree this patch is right. r=kengert on the assumption you have verified that all uses of this string ID are updated (I have not checked that).

Cv1, with added space after comma(s). (Sorry, I didn't notice before.)

(In reply to comment #9) > on the assumption you have verified that > all uses of this string ID are updated (I have not checked that). Yes, see the URL for this bug ... I've submitted patches for all occurrences.

Checking in java/webclient/src_moz/motif/BrowserControlNativeShimStub.cpp; /cvsroot/mozilla/java/webclient/src_moz/motif/BrowserControlNativeShimStub.cpp,v <-- BrowserControlNativeShimStub.cpp new revision: 1.4; previous revision: 1.3 done Checking in java/webclient/src_moz/motif/MotifBrowserControlCanvasStub.cpp; /cvsroot/mozilla/java/webclient/src_moz/motif/MotifBrowserControlCanvasStub.cpp,v <-- MotifBrowserControlCanvasStub.cpp new revision: 1.5; previous revision: 1.4 done Checking in java/webclient/src_moz/motif/NativeLoaderStub.cpp; /cvsroot/mozilla/java/webclient/src_moz/motif/NativeLoaderStub.cpp,v <-- NativeLoaderStub.cpp new revision: 1.13; previous revision: 1.12 done Checking in intl/uconv/util/ugen.c; /cvsroot/mozilla/intl/uconv/util/ugen.c,v <-- ugen.c new revision: 1.24; previous revision: 1.23 done Checking in calendar/libical/src/libical/icalrecur.h; /cvsroot/mozilla/calendar/libical/src/libical/icalrecur.h,v <-- icalrecur.h new revision: 1.2; previous revision: 1.1 done Checking in calendar/libical/src/libical/autogenex/ical.h; /cvsroot/mozilla/calendar/libical/src/libical/autogenex/ical.h,v <-- ical.h new revision: 1.3; previous revision: 1.2 done Checking in security/manager/pki/resources/content/editcerts.js; /cvsroot/mozilla/security/manager/pki/resources/content/editcerts.js,v <-- editcerts.js new revision: 1.17; previous revision: 1.16 done Checking in security/manager/pki/resources/content/editemailcert.xul; /cvsroot/mozilla/security/manager/pki/resources/content/editemailcert.xul,v <-- editemailcert.xul new revision: 1.6; previous revision: 1.5 done Checking in security/manager/pki/resources/content/editsslcert.xul; /cvsroot/mozilla/security/manager/pki/resources/content/editsslcert.xul,v <-- editsslcert.xul new revision: 1.17; previous revision: 1.16 done

It's fine if you don't seek review for such tree-wide changes from the respective module owner. But it's not fine, if you change files within a module, without at least informing the module owner (Daniel Boelzle for Calendar) or one of the main developers. I find it unfortunate that I had to learn about this bug from looking at the checkin comments.

[Off topic] (In reply to comment #4) > (and the first two don't need review since they only touch comments). (In reply to comment #13) > it's not fine, if you change files within a module, without at least My review requests would have let people know ... Sorry. [Off topic]

Sorry, I wasn't aware that the calendar project wanted to be notified of comment only typo fixes. They should probably make that known in bug 106386, which has changed calendar files in the past.

Gavin, we want to know for two reasons: 1. We currently implement a strict mirror policy between trunk and the 1.8 branch, for Calendar code meaning that all changes have to land on both the trunk and the branch to keep them in sync. 2. The libical that the patch touched here is not our own code, we just regularly sync with upstream and any diversions from upstream make merging harder for us.

(Simon, feel free to either request branch approval or revert this patch, if either suits your project.)

I already committed the changes to Calendar files to the 1.8 branch. Branch approval is not needed for files in mozilla/calendar.