About string removal in Aurora/Beta

Mark Finkle mfinkle at mozilla.com
Sun Apr 7 10:48:22 PDT 2013


(cc'ing mobile-firefox-dev so the Mobile team see this too) 

I also agree and we will be trying harder to make sure we follow this policy. 

Thanks flod 

----- Original Message -----

> (redirecting this to firefox-dev, since it's more of a development
> process question rather than a planning one)

> I agree with you, and from my perspective this was already
> agreed-upon
> policy for Aurora. Clearly not widely understood, though.

> Both approval requests pointed out the removals, so the best way to
> ensure we get consistent behavior is to make sure that approval
> triagers (release management) are aware of this policy when handling
> Aurora approval requests.

> Gavin

> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:50 PM, flod <flod at lodolo.net> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > as we all know Aurora and Beta are supposed to be string frozen,
> > and this
> > worked pretty good in the last release cycles.
> >
> > Nevertheless I noticed a trend in the last cycle: let's remove
> > unused
> > strings from Aurora! That happened for both mobile[1] and
> > browser[2].
> >
> > What does it happen when you remove strings in Aurora? l10n
> > dashboard goes
> > yellow with warnings[3], since your locale has strings that are not
> > supposed
> > to be there.
> > At this point you can either ignore the warnings or fix them by
> > removing
> > these strings and requesting a new sign-off for your locale
> >
> > All this could be easily avoided by not removing the strings on
> > Aurora and
> > just removing the feature.
> >
> > Pros:
> >
> > * Strings will be removed anyway in 6 weeks, since they were
> > already
> > deleted on mozilla-central.
> > * No warnings for localizers.
> > * No extra work for l10n-drivers (sign-off reviews).
> >
> > Cons:
> >
> > * You have to strip string changes from the original patch
> >
> > I think pros largely outweigh cons here. What do you think? Am I
> > missing
> > something?
> > I'm pretty sure this was done in the past for some patches, but I'd
> > like it
> > to be considered as a rule for Aurora approvals.
> >
> > Francesco
> >
> > [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=853022
> > [2] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=840124
> > [3] https://l10n.mozilla.org/shipping/dashboard?tree=fx_beta
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dev-planning mailing list
> > dev-planning at lists.mozilla.org
> > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
> _______________________________________________
> firefox-dev mailing list
> firefox-dev at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/firefox-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/mobile-firefox-dev/attachments/20130407/6096b406/attachment.html>


More information about the mobile-firefox-dev mailing list