Revert "fix: preserve debuggability even in minimized release mode"

[mikehardy]

Purpose / Description

This reverts commit aa271f9.

-dontobfuscate appears to cause problems, and there were crashes in 2.19beta4-6 that appear to be related to it

It should work, and the failure has not been characterized yet

Fixes

• Fixes [BUG]: beta4, beta5 doesn't start anymore on Android 8.0.0 (SDK 26) #17256

Approach

A lot of detailed investigation and reading on my part, but really it was just a bisect and then a one-line change on an alternate release pathway (#17259) that allowed me to zero in on the -dontobfuscate change to proguard config

How Has This Been Tested?

Diff indicated that proguard was only thing between beta3 and beta4 that should have caused this, and disabling it worked for user. So I assume that reverting that change will then work.

There is a slight chance it will not work.

Learning (optional, can help others)

-dontobfuscate must have some interaction between app code and library code but I couldn't pin it down

Checklist

Please, go through these checks before submitting the PR.

• You have a descriptive commit message with a short title (first line, max 50 chars).
• You have commented your code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• You have performed a self-review of your own code
• UI changes: include screenshots of all affected screens (in particular showing any new or changed strings)
• UI Changes: You have tested your change using the Google Accessibility Scanner

[mikehardy]

Note that all the other work related to this is still valuable and should help going forward I think:

• we now upload proguard mappings files to github release, so retrace tool should work regardless
• we now create a "nominify" release alongside normal releases, to help with whatever our next proguard crash is

[david-allison]

Not sure if you wanted a second approval from @voczi.

I've force pushed & I'm happy to merge

[mikehardy]

It is more that Voczi worked so hard on this + was the primary driver that I wanted to make sure he was aware - but also that he had a chance to chime in in case the revert was missing something in the same way the original addition was, who knows?
But a revert shouldn't be too controversial either way

Still can't believe that caused a crash. what the heck