I am not sure what Mozilla uses for nightly Firefox builds, but maybe we can do something similar.
Apparently they use an alpha version number, e.g., appVersion="60.0a1" and rely on the fact that they change the buildID for each nightly build, e.g., buildID="20180131100706".
Thanks for the link. If I understand it correctly, it seems a version number like 2018.01.31 would conform to this standard format. We could also include the alpha version number in addition to the date, like 8.0a1.2018.01.31.
I am not sure what Mozilla uses for nightly Firefox builds, but maybe we can do something similar.
Apparently they use an alpha version number, e.g., appVersion="60.0a1" and rely on the fact that they change the buildID for each nightly build, e.g., buildID="20180131100706".
I think it would be possible for us to do it like this, but would require some changes in our tools:
change the mar file names to include the buildID number
change the script we use to generate incremental mars to be able to do it from two builds that have the same version number but a different buildID
change the script we use to generate XML update responses to handle URLs with a buildID
I think updating the version number only would require less changes. So I'm wondering if there is some other reason that would still make us prefer doing it with the buildID like Mozilla.
Thanks for the link. If I understand it correctly, it seems a version number like 2018.01.31 would conform to this standard format. We could also include the alpha version number in addition to the date, like 8.0a1.2018.01.31.
I am not sure what Mozilla uses for nightly Firefox builds, but maybe we can do something similar.
Apparently they use an alpha version number, e.g., appVersion="60.0a1" and rely on the fact that they change the buildID for each nightly build, e.g., buildID="20180131100706".
I think it would be possible for us to do it like this, but would require some changes in our tools:
change the mar file names to include the buildID number
change the script we use to generate incremental mars to be able to do it from two builds that have the same version number but a different buildID
change the script we use to generate XML update responses to handle URLs with a buildID
I think updating the version number only would require less changes. So I'm wondering if there is some other reason that would still make us prefer doing it with the buildID like Mozilla.
I don't know of any reason to favor one approach over another, except doing it like Mozilla does might make it less likely that things will break for us in the future. But that is only a theoretical concern, and if our nightly updates break it would not be the end of the world.
As doing it the same way as Mozilla requires a lot of changes, I think we can start with the more simple solution of using a version number that includes the date, and do it differently if we see problems with that.
Currently we put the nightly builds in directory nightly/$year-$month-$day. Now that the version is changing every day, a possible simplification would be to put it inside nightly/$torbrowser_version.
Currently we put the nightly builds in directory nightly/$year-$month-$day. Now that the version is changing every day, a possible simplification would be to put it inside nightly/$torbrowser_version.
Doing that will also simplify the generation of incremental mars, as the gen_incrementals script currently expects the directory name to be the same as the version number. I will post a new revision of the patch doing that.
Trac: Status: assigned to needs_revision Keywords: TorBrowserTeam201911R deleted, TorBrowserTeam201911 added
One of them remove the alpha_nightly target, for simplification, as I think it was not really used. The other sets the version to tbb-nightly.$year.$month.$day, and also use that version number as the directory name in nightly/.
Trac: Status: needs_revision to needs_review Keywords: TorBrowserTeam201911 deleted, TorBrowserTeam201911R added