Bug 1343990 - add Fennec Release Graph 2. #219
Conversation
MihaiTabara
requested review from
rail,
escapewindow and
kmoir
and removed request for
kmoir
|
|
||
| product: "fennec" | ||
| product: "mobile" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmmm, we don't usually use "mobile" for product, it's either stage_product or appName, see https://hg.mozilla.org/build/buildbot-configs/file/tip/mozilla/release-fennec-mozilla-release.py.template#l19. I'm not sure where it is used in the graph, but I'd check it. This also applies to the file renames.
| - | ||
| taskId: "{{ stableSlugId(buildername) }}" | ||
| requires: | ||
| - "{{ stableSlugId('publish_release_human_decision') }}" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd rather make this dependent on push to cdns. If push to cdns fails, we shouldn't update the bouncer aliases.
| - | ||
| taskId: "{{ stableSlugId(buildername) }}" | ||
| requires: | ||
| - "{{ stableSlugId('publish_release_human_decision') }}" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the same here, cdns first, then the rest
| - | ||
| taskId: "{{ stableSlugId(buildername) }}" | ||
| requires: | ||
| - "{{ stableSlugId('publish_release_human_decision') }}" |
|
@rail Thanks again for the suggestions - I revisited my patch and was able to improve the things a bit at a second round. So here we go:
|
| @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ | |||
| {% set buildername = "release-{}-{}_version_bump".format(branch, product) %} | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Have we changed the script to make sure we don't downgrade the version? It shouldn't be too hard.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The script itself you mean? Am not sure yet. The builder is set to False anyway until I add the necessary configs within mozharness and buildbot-configs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should I merge and address this later when I deal with postrelease builders anyway or should I look into it now?
|
Merged! |
@rail @escapewindow @kmoir
Few observations:
Shouldn't we split the release configs into "beta" and "release" or some sort? I know we're dealing with beta only now, but it'd be worth renaming those to "beta" and copy-paste later to obtain the "release" ones.
I think it'd be worth chaining the checksum builder in the second graph. Currently, "push-to-releases" depends on it. We can either remove that dep or enable checksums within the second graph.
I filed bugs against 1343990 to mark the changes we need to make in the second graph builders to make them work. However, right now we only need the
push-to-releasesbuilder which works fine. The rest of them can be disabled and/or run manually.