Issue 5061 - Update adblockpluscore dependency to 3bdddf0e8343

Issue 5061 - Update adblockpluscore dependency to 3bdddf0e8343

Based upon the changes here https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29374674/

[kzar, 2017-03-30 07:34:56]

Patch Set 1

[Sebastian Noack, 2017-03-30 08:02:30]

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29398651/diff/29398652/dependencies
File dependencies (right):

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29398651/diff/29398652/dependencies#newcode5
dependencies:5: adblockpluscore = adblockpluscore hg:68a4dc4e79e8 git:2574147
While there is a separate issue for this dependency update now, mind updating to
the latest version of adblockpluscore, while on it?

[kzar, 2017-03-30 09:21:08]

On 2017/03/30 08:02:30, Sebastian Noack wrote:
> While there is a separate issue for this dependency update now, mind 
> updating to the latest version of adblockpluscore, while on it?

I would rather not if that's OK, since doing something similar bit me on the
arse recently with the "Hide targeted..." notifications.

[Sebastian Noack, 2017-03-30 10:54:34]

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29398651/diff/29398652/dependencies
File dependencies (right):

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29398651/diff/29398652/dependencies#newcode5
dependencies:5: adblockpluscore = adblockpluscore hg:68a4dc4e79e8 git:2574147
On 2017/03/30 09:21:08, kzar wrote:
> On 2017/03/30 08:02:30, Sebastian Noack wrote:
> > While there is a separate issue for this dependency update now, mind 
> > updating to the latest version of adblockpluscore, while on it?
> 
> I would rather not if that's OK, since doing something similar bit me on the
> arse recently with the "Hide targeted..." notifications.

The problem there was that the dependency was updated along changes that relied
on an upstream change but nobody cared about the other changes pulled in. The
solution therefore is not to have a separate dependency update for each upstream
change, but to make sure that all upstream changes get considered when updating
the dependency. Though, when there is no separate issue for the dependency
update, I'd agree that some upstream changes are potentially unrelated. But
since there is a separate issue for this dependency update, there is no reason
to not have it pull in all upstream changes, while on it. Just make sure that
the issue description covers all relevant changes pulled in, and adapt any
integration code where necessary. It's actually less risky this way, because if
done properly, the next dependency update will be more safe, while otherwise the
risk is just carried over to future dependency updates.

[kzar, 2017-03-30 13:56:32]

Patch Set 2 : Update dependency further

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29398651/diff/29398652/dependencies
File dependencies (right):

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29398651/diff/29398652/dependencies#newcode5
dependencies:5: adblockpluscore = adblockpluscore hg:68a4dc4e79e8 git:2574147
On 2017/03/30 10:54:34, Sebastian Noack wrote:
> On 2017/03/30 09:21:08, kzar wrote:
> > On 2017/03/30 08:02:30, Sebastian Noack wrote:
> > > While there is a separate issue for this dependency update now, mind 
> > > updating to the latest version of adblockpluscore, while on it?
> > 
> > I would rather not if that's OK, since doing something similar bit me on the
> > arse recently with the "Hide targeted..." notifications.
> 
> The problem there was that the dependency was updated along changes that
relied
> on an upstream change but nobody cared about the other changes pulled in. The
> solution therefore is not to have a separate dependency update for each
upstream
> change, but to make sure that all upstream changes get considered when
updating
> the dependency. Though, when there is no separate issue for the dependency
> update, I'd agree that some upstream changes are potentially unrelated. But
> since there is a separate issue for this dependency update, there is no reason
> to not have it pull in all upstream changes, while on it. Just make sure that
> the issue description covers all relevant changes pulled in, and adapt any
> integration code where necessary. It's actually less risky this way, because
if
> done properly, the next dependency update will be more safe, while otherwise
the
> risk is just carried over to future dependency updates.

Done.

[Sebastian Noack, 2017-03-30 14:38:28]

LGTM