[Project_owners] Re: AMO...

Michael J Gruber fastmail at michaeljgruber.fm
Wed Apr 26 13:21:02 EDT 2006

Philip Chee venit, vidit, dixit 2006-04-25 19:47:
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:39:21 +0200, Michael J Gruber wrote:
>> I just tried to upload the DOMi for Thunderbird on Linux to
>> addons.mozilla.org. It seems AMO doesn't know about this update yet as
>> they don't allow as a maxVersion. Oh my deer.
> Try {1.5.0.*}. The existing DOMi extensions for Thunderbird-windows and
> Thunderbird-macosx on AMO use this.

Might be they do that, but they shouldn't. The DOMi for is
version of the extension which is different from 1.8 (for TB 1.5).

Anyway, TB is out, the RCs have been out a while, and the
/released source/ of TB generates those install.rdf entries when
compiling with DOMi. So, why I should I use an incorrect maxVersion?

>> Not that it would matter - the DOMi for TB 1.5 I submitted April 4
>> hasn't been approved yet anyways.
> Unless you are Scott MacGregor, shouldn't AMO say something like, you
> are not the owner of this extension? Hmm. 

They should at least say something. They might even look at the
pertaining bugzilla entry I referred to where Scott specifically asks me
to upload DOMi for him.

> Downloads and looks at the
> above two extensions. Does your install.rdf say:
> <em:id>inspector-tb-linux at mozilla.org</em:id>

It's not really "my" install.rdf but the one generated from the TB
source (I just removed the FF targetApplication entry), and it says

<em:id>inspector at mozilla.org</em:id>

>> Is this happening for other TB extension authors as well (that's why I'm
> How many AMO reviewers use linux to review extensions? It might be worth
> it to ping a reviewer who is known to use linux.

The matter of accepting as a valid maxVersion is not platform
specific. The matter of reviewing is, of course. I'd be happy to
volunteer but the whole reviewing process doesn't seem very transparent
(to me).


More information about the Project_owners mailing list