[Greasemonkey] Re: Greasemonkey 0.6.5 -- compat with FF 2.0 and minor icon change

[Godmar Back]

When making an extension compatible with 2.0, do we have to make it
*only* compatible with 2.0b1 in a first step, but are not allowed to
declare it compatible with the 2.0 series, i.e., 2.0, 2.0.1, etc.?

That would mean we'd have to push/test two versions of the add-on, one
for the 2.0beta series and one for the actual 2.0 series?  Is this
correct?

I note that https://addons.mozilla.org/faq.php contradicts
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Extension_Versioning,_Update_and_Compatibility
which stated that "Versions like "2.0b" or "4.2 Preview" are not
valid. " However, that article has a warning at the top that it may be
out of date.

 - Godmar

On 7/24/06, arantius at gmail.com <arantius at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/24/2006 11:36 AM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
> > Yeah I noticed the same thing as well. I was going to try and figure
> > out what versions of 2.0x addons would allow today.
>
> https://addons.mozilla.org/faq.php
>
> Firefox 1.5.0.* {ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}
> Firefox 2.0a1   {ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}
> Firefox 2.0a2   {ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}
> Firefox 2.0a3   {ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}
> Firefox 2.0b1   {ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}
> Firefox 3.0a1   {ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}
> _______________________________________________
> Greasemonkey mailing list
> Greasemonkey at mozdev.org
> http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/greasemonkey
>