Extension signing enforcement delayed

[Drumbrake]

We’re adding a feature in Firefox 45 that allows temporarily loading unsigned restartless add-ons in release, which will allow developers of those add-ons to use Firefox for testing, and we’d like this option to be available when we remove the preference

So much for "unbranded builds"? Just "temporarily loading unsigned restartless add-ons" ? Really ?

[Mouse5]

i cant see Firefox remaining in the top 4 Browser Market once the perm remove that pref

[lithopsian]

Temporary in this context means you have to load the addon explicitly every time you start Firefox. Talk about making policy on the hoof.

And only restartless? Overlay addons are starting to be deprecated already?

[Benjamin Markson]

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Addons/Extensi ... g#Timeline
Firefox 40-42: Firefox warns about signatures but doesn't enforce them.
Firefox 43: Firefox will have a preference that allows signature enforcement to be disabled (xpinstall.signatures.required in about:config).
Firefox 46: Release and Beta versions of Firefox will not allow unsigned extensions to be installed, with no override.

https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2016/01 ... ng-update/

Thanks for that. https://wiki.mozilla.org/Addons/Extension_Signing#FAQ still claims:

There will also be special unbranded versions of Release and Beta that will have this setting, so that add-on developers can work on their add-ons without having to sign every build.

And, https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2016/01 ... ng-update/ says:

Signing will be mandatory in the beta and release versions of Firefox from 46 onwards, at which point unbranded builds based on beta and release will be provided for testing.

...although finding anything substantive about the progress of the 'unbranded' version still eludes me.

Ben.

[Drumbrake]

Temporary in this context means you have to load the addon explicitly every time you start Firefox.

Because we haven't been harassed enough so far.

[WaltS48]

And, https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2016/01 ... ng-update/ says:

Signing will be mandatory in the beta and release versions of Firefox from 46 onwards, at which point unbranded builds based on beta and release will be provided for testing.

...although finding anything substantive about the progress of the 'unbranded' version still eludes me.

Ben.

What progress is required?

When Firefox 46.0 is built with branding, they will also build one without branding.

How will the unbranded versions of Firefox work?

They will work just like Firefox, with two differences: they will have a setting to disable mandatory signature checks, and they will not have the Firefox name and logo (instead using a generic name and logo). They will be available in the en-US locale only.

Seems simple enough.

[Frank Lion]

Seems simple enough.

Everything seems simple enough to Mozilla and to users who don't actually make extensions for Firefox.

[6lobe]

Seems simple enough.

Everything seems simple enough to Mozilla and to users who don't actually make extensions for Firefox.

Are you suggesting Mozilla should specifically cater for 0.001% of the userbase at the expense of the majority?

[Frank Lion]

Are you suggesting Mozilla should specifically cater for 0.001% of the userbase ...?

Like the visually impaired, people with learning difficulties or muscle control problems? Damn right I am. Think before you write.

Seems simple enough.

Everything seems simple enough to Mozilla and to users who don't actually make extensions for Firefox.

Are you suggesting Mozilla should specifically cater for 0.001% of the userbase at the expense of the majority?

I am specifically suggesting that Mozilla should have been catering for the needs of 100% of extension authors at the expense of no one. Blitzing rogue side loading extensions, as we suggested years ago, would have avoided this nonsense.

I'm also suggesting that it's damn easy to be smug and dismissive of timescales if they do not actually affect you at all.

Any more questions or was that it?

[6lobe]

If youre angry about a decision lashing out against the developers and the rest of the userbase isnt going to result in anything productive.

Being quiet is the better choice if you dont have anything productive to say.

Its like a lot of people here actively try to kill this browser by driving people away and preventing any collaboration with their constant vitriol.

[Frank Lion]

If youre angry

Except that I'm not, just truthful.

Being quiet is the better choice if you dont have anything productive to say.

Well, you had better be quiet then, hadn't you? Being productive involves a good bit more than sitting on the sidelines, like halfwits, shouting 'Good job! Good job!' at every silly decision that Mozilla has ever made.

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic ... 5#p4700265

[LoudNoise]

[Mouse5]

If youre angry about a decision lashing out against the developers and the rest of the userbase isnt going to result in anything productive.

Being quiet is the better choice if you dont have anything productive to say.

Its like a lot of people here actively try to kill this browser by driving people away and preventing any collaboration with their constant vitriol.

Mozilla devs are the ones driving people away, not the other way around buddy

[LoudNoise]

i am torn between posting an Eurythmics video or simply ignoring it