SM 2.35 end of May?

[LuvKomputrs]

@therube
Am having loads of fun switching back and forth between both versions.
Having no issues at all using both 2.33.1 and 2.38a1 on my computer.

[ndebord]

Not much news from the most recent meeting. The folks who would be most likely to have answers were not in today's meeting, but it looks like getting a machine setup to build SM for Windows is too much of a bother for Mozilla, and even just getting a loaner machine to do secure contributed builds is also not progressing.

Patrick,

Is there a 501c3 component (non-profit org) to SeaMonkey? If so, then you can apply to TechSoup for a donated machine.

http://www.techsoup.org/

(just saying)

[jez]

Not much news from the most recent meeting. The folks who would be most likely to have answers were not in today's meeting, but it looks like getting a machine setup to build SM for Windows is too much of a bother for Mozilla, and even just getting a loaner machine to do secure contributed builds is also not progressing.

Patrick,

Is there a 501c3 component (non-profit org) to SeaMonkey? If so, then you can apply to TechSoup for a donated machine.

http://www.techsoup.org/

(just saying)

I think there are various people associated with SeaMonkey (myself included) who would chip in donations for SeaMonkey build machines and even software. The problem, it seems to me, is that SM is too closely linked with one or two people at Mozilla whose responsibilities are primarily to do with Firefox and on whom they are 100% reliant in getting nightly builds. That situation probably needs to change.

[patrickjdempsey]

The issue is not with setting up a build machine and doing the building. Anyone can do that. The issue is setting up a *secure* build machine that they trust for releases. Thus why they want a loaner from Mozilla and need Mozilla employees to do that.

[rsx11m]

Exactly, at least for the official SeaMonkey builds.

[jez]

The issue is not with setting up a build machine and doing the building. Anyone can do that. The issue is setting up a *secure* build machine that they trust for releases. Thus why they want a loaner from Mozilla and need Mozilla employees to do that.

I still say you don't need Mozilla to do that, you just need a competent sysadmin.

[patrickjdempsey]

Well make a blog about it or something. I'd like to keep this thread as informational and not opinion-based rants. There's enough misunderstanding and opinions out there.

[NanM]

SeaMonkey Windows Builds, if you wish.

Ratty

= Phil Chee's trust tick for those builds?
We have a holiday tomorrow and have time to have a go at them.

[therube]

Yes, those are builds were made, posted by Phil Chee (well AFAIK).

[ndebord]

The issue is not with setting up a build machine and doing the building. Anyone can do that. The issue is setting up a *secure* build machine that they trust for releases. Thus why they want a loaner from Mozilla and need Mozilla employees to do that.

PatrickDempsey,

I wonder how a secure build machine would be defined. Having helped* set up many a nonprofit network with donated machines, the first thing you do is scrub down to bare metal and then rebuild everything, from hardware to software... TechSoup has most anything you can think of from servers to laptops, etc. You just have to be a nonprofit and be able to prove it.

* When I say help, I mean I get the gear, other people do the hard work of making it work as my competence in IT is purely trial and error, at best. I've gotten stuff from NASDAQ, hedge funds, a senior college, etc.... even a rebuild outfit in Brooklyn that gives back. I guess what you are saying is that it has to be on a secure network?

I would say to Mozilla that instead of a loaner, that SeaMonkey can get a machine with the appropriate specs that is dedicated to and owned by SeaMonkey and that resides wherever it is secure in Mozilla's opinion.

[rsx11m]

Yes, those are builds were made, posted by Phil Chee (well AFAIK).

I sure trust Ratty, I'm not sure if I trust Google Drive.
Also, these links are not release-channel builds!

If any build is to be released on Mozilla's FTP server or through their update servers, it'll have to be build on a machine that Mozilla or at least SeaMonkey RelEng has control over (i.e., not a private machine hiding in someone's basement). That's my understanding from the discussion.

[LuvKomputrs]

Yes, those are builds were made, posted by Phil Chee (well AFAIK).

KUDOS to Phil for making those builds.
Having no issues at all whilst using 2.38a1
Have it in a separate folder from my installed version of SeaMonkey 2.33.1
I am using a different profile as well when running 2.38a1

[LuvKomputrs]

I sure trust Ratty, I'm not sure if I trust Google Drive.
Also, these links are not release-channel builds!

If any build is to be released on Mozilla's FTP server or through their update servers, it'll have to be build on a machine that Mozilla or at least SeaMonkey RelEng has control over (i.e., not a private machine hiding in someone's basement). That's my understanding from the discussion.

Even though they're not release-channel builds they're EXCELLENT and I have no qualms at all using the build I chose to download
And I was very, very pleased to see the builds offered by Ratty for us users of SeaMonkey for Windows.
And I do fully trust a member from the SeaMonkey project team using a private machine for builds for SeaMonkey, even when they're not release-channel.
I have faith that the issue that they're having getting a machine(s) to get the release-channel builds up and running on Mozilla's FTP server will be resolved very soon.
These folks are working very, very hard at it and KUDOS to each and everyone of them for doing that.

[Lemon Juice]

If any build is to be released on Mozilla's FTP server or through their update servers, it'll have to be build on a machine that Mozilla or at least SeaMonkey RelEng has control over (i.e., not a private machine hiding in someone's basement). That's my understanding from the discussion.

Maybe it would be a good idea to conditionally relax the rules to allow builds from private developer's machines, like Ratty's, to be used officially? If the delay gets bigger the risk of using an outdated version with security holes may outweigh the risk of using a private build.

[LuvKomputrs]

Maybe it would be a good idea to conditionally relax the rules to allow builds from private developer's machines, like Ratty's, to be used officially? If the delay gets bigger the risk of using an outdated version with security holes may outweigh the risk of using a private build.

Sounds like a very good idea to me.
IMHO this would also make a lot of users who use SeaMonkey very happy and want their SeaMonkey up to date.
Hopefully the delay will be over soon and the team at the SeaMonkey project are working very, very hard to get that done.
KUDOS to ALL of them.