Update translation CI to account for the extended 13.5 release

added 14.0 stable 14.5 stable Localization Task labels

assigned to @henry

marked this issue as related to #42747 (closed)

marked this issue as related to #43125 (closed)

@henry can we keep the naming the same (i.e. 13.5 stable, 14.0 stable, and 14.5 alpha concurrently)? Or will multiple -stable branches/tags confuse things? We could change 13.5 to something like 'legacy' or 'extended-stable' instead of 'stable'.

Having the word "stable" in both the 13.5 and 14.0 tags would confuse the script, as it is. But I have to modify the script anyway. So I could always build a specific exception for 13.5 though. I.e. if the branch contains 13.5 I'll treat it as legacy/extended instead. And I'll clean it up later.

I just need to know whatever the plan is so I can get the script to correctly identify the latest 14.0 stable and 13.5 legacy branches.

What naming scheme would make the script itself easiest to develop+maintain? Two immediate options which come to mind is we either give 13.5 a signed tag naming scheme (e.g. legacy, old-stable, etc) OR we can have a specific carve-out for tor-browser-115.* tags.

If you stick the a key word like "legacy" in the tor-browser-*-build1 tag annotation, that would be very simple to adapt the script for. E.g.

tor-browser-115.17.0esr-13.5-1-build1 Tagging build1 for 115.15.0esr-based legacy

I'd prefer not to change the scheme for branch names. We start having some scripts depending on it.

Adding "legacy" isn't a problem though. At the moment I use a script to tag, I can adjust it easily enough.

Also, Morgan wanted to make this script part of our "official" tools. I think it'd be a good opportunity to do it.

@henry please keep in mind we might release a final 13.5-based alpha (I'm less worried about the updater patch now, though). Will that confuse the script?

Also, I wonder if we can use the website's databag a source of truth for the current channels (BTW, would we need to add something to the website to download 13.5.x for legacy platforms? Or should we keep it hidden as OTAs?).

please keep in mind we might release a final 13.5-based alpha (I'm less worried about the updater patch now, though). Will that confuse the script?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Depending on how you tag this build, the script may ignore it. The script would still use the latest "legacy" tag it finds though, which I imagine would most likely use the same strings.

In any case, I can always veto the result of the CI to stop it landing in the translation repository, since the script only opens a draft merge request.

use the website's databag a source of truth for the current channels

Yeah, I wish there was a more "official" way to figure out the branch name for the next stable build. The tag annotation method has worked so far, but I'm worried it will break at some point.

please keep in mind we might release a final 13.5-based alpha (I'm less worried about the updater patch now, though). Will that confuse the script?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

I'm preparing a 13.5a10 to test the wathershed+updater changes.

use the website's database a source of truth for the current channels

Yeah, I wish there was a more "official" way to figure out the branch name for the next stable build. The tag annotation method has worked so far, but I'm worried it will break at some point.

This allows to know the current stable, I don't know if it's better/worse than the tag.