[Greasemonkey] Greasemonkeyed.com, userscript.org, forums, source code, and the future of our community

Nikolas Coukouma lists at atrus.org
Mon Aug 1 14:29:09 EDT 2005

Bill Donnelly wrote:

> Again, I point to the "Firefox Extension Community"
> with the way extensions written for older versions
> of Ffx don't install until they are specifically
> checked by the author and coded as okay.
> In fact, they have both a From and a To versioning
> check to signal that it won't work on older versions
> if that is true.

The problem I see is that web sites aren't usually versioned, at least
not in a meaningful way to outsiders. Working with dates might make
sense, but it's impractical to guess when a site design will change.

I think we're stuck with soliciting feedback from users. Simply asking
"does it work?" and reporting that "this script currently works for 80%
of users" seems useful. On Greasemonkey's end, we should make it easy to
report broken scripts, once the feature is added to a site.

> Plus the MozillaZine forums for features requests and
> bug reports for each extension, usually with a thread
> specifically for each extension, if the author wants to
> go that route. (and a default 'homepage', too, if the
> author doesn't want to have a special one -- of course,
> there is always the whole site bandwidth problem and
> who will pay for it, etc. -- although, you can always
> store the actual download files on a 'free server')
> Anyway, I personally like that whole setup.

I like the idea of providing some tools for communicating with the
author of a script. On the other hand, user scripts are supposed to be
sorta disposable. Associating a script with an author and having some
contact info is definitely desirable. Some sort of searchable forum
system seems good so people can look through earlier discussions. Bug
tracking seems like a bit much when (I think) most scripts have < 1k
lines of code.


More information about the Greasemonkey mailing list