From silfreed at silfreed.net  Tue Jul  1 07:30:36 2008
From: silfreed at silfreed.net (Douglas E. Warner)
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 10:30:36 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] Replacement for mozdev.org templates
In-Reply-To: <g4bjcp$2u40$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <g48iev$2303$1@mozdev.mozdev.org> <g4arh2$c5d$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<g4bjcp$2u40$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <200807011030.36910.silfreed@silfreed.net>

On Monday 30 June 2008 17:32:07 Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla 
wrote:
> > Oh dear. Apache's dreadful mod_rewrite I just got to master this one day
> > soon.
>
> Note: mod_rewrite works. ?I've added a few test rules to rewrite
> sites/pages but I am still trying to solve the puzzle for the above
> rewrite.

Our mod_rewrite rules are pretty complicated right now; here are some snippets 
that deal with the templating system that might help with things.

-Doug

RewriteRule .* - [E=MZ_HTTP_HOST:%{HTTP_HOST}]
RewriteCond %{ENV:MZ_HTTP_HOST} ^([^.]+)\.(mozdev|vebzom)\.org(:[0-9]+)?\.?$ 
[NC]
RewriteRule ^ - [E=VHOST:${lowercase:%1},S=1]
RewriteRule ^ - [E=VHOST:www]

RewriteRule ^/$ /php/index.php?project=%{ENV:VHOST}&page=index.html [L]
RewriteRule ^/(.+\.html?)$ /php/index.php?project=%{ENV:VHOST}&page=$1 [L]
RewriteRule ^(.+/)$ /php/index.php?project=%{ENV:VHOST}&page=$1index.html [L]
RewriteCond %{DOCUMENT_ROOT}/%{ENV:VHOST}/www%{REQUEST_URI} -f
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ /%{ENV:VHOST}/www$1 [L,PT]

-- 
Douglas E. Warner    <silfreed at silfreed.net>    Site Developer
Mozdev.org           http://www.mozdev.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080701/7598e4ad/attachment.bin>

From mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com  Tue Jul  1 08:51:14 2008
From: mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com (Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla)
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 17:51:14 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] Replacement for mozdev.org templates
In-Reply-To: <mailman.13.1214922650.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
References: <g48iev$2303$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<g4arh2$c5d$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>	<g4bjcp$2u40$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<mailman.13.1214922650.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g4djph$9s9$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

Douglas E. Warner wrote:
> On Monday 30 June 2008 17:32:07 Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla 
> wrote:
>>> Oh dear. Apache's dreadful mod_rewrite I just got to master this one day
>>> soon.
>> Note: mod_rewrite works.  I've added a few test rules to rewrite
>> sites/pages but I am still trying to solve the puzzle for the above
>> rewrite.
> 
> Our mod_rewrite rules are pretty complicated right now; here are some snippets 
> that deal with the templating system that might help with things.
> 
> -Doug
> 
> RewriteRule .* - [E=MZ_HTTP_HOST:%{HTTP_HOST}]
> RewriteCond %{ENV:MZ_HTTP_HOST} ^([^.]+)\.(mozdev|vebzom)\.org(:[0-9]+)?\.?$ 
> [NC]
> RewriteRule ^ - [E=VHOST:${lowercase:%1},S=1]
> RewriteRule ^ - [E=VHOST:www]
> 
> RewriteRule ^/$ /php/index.php?project=%{ENV:VHOST}&page=index.html [L]
> RewriteRule ^/(.+\.html?)$ /php/index.php?project=%{ENV:VHOST}&page=$1 [L]
> RewriteRule ^(.+/)$ /php/index.php?project=%{ENV:VHOST}&page=$1index.html [L]
> RewriteCond %{DOCUMENT_ROOT}/%{ENV:VHOST}/www%{REQUEST_URI} -f
> RewriteRule ^(.*)$ /%{ENV:VHOST}/www$1 [L,PT]

Okay, that looks promising. Thus the URL:
http://multizilla.mozdev.org/news/news.html
should set the following environmental variables:

MZ_HTTP_HOST	= multizilla.mozdev.org
VHOST		= multizilla

and the following server vars to:

HTTP_HOST	= multizilla.mozdev.org
DOCUMENT_ROOT	= /mozdev/sandbox/data/helm/htdoc
REQUEST_URI	= /news/news.html

Your second RewriteCond seems to be included for scripting,
but I can be wrong of course.

I do wonder if this changes the browsers location bar to something like:
sub.domain.tlc/index.php?project=multizilla&page=/news/news.html ???

Thanks again!

Michael

From silfreed at silfreed.net  Tue Jul  1 10:56:46 2008
From: silfreed at silfreed.net (Douglas E. Warner)
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 13:56:46 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] Replacement for mozdev.org templates
In-Reply-To: <g4djph$9s9$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <g48iev$2303$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<mailman.13.1214922650.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g4djph$9s9$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <200807011356.46381.silfreed@silfreed.net>

On Tuesday 01 July 2008 11:51:14 Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla 
wrote:
> I do wonder if this changes the browsers location bar to something like:
> sub.domain.tlc/index.php?project=multizilla&page=/news/news.html ???

Looks like you have the gist of it.

-Doug

-- 
Douglas E. Warner    <silfreed at silfreed.net>    Site Developer
Mozdev.org           http://www.mozdev.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080701/2f218e01/attachment.bin>

From mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com  Tue Jul  1 20:21:28 2008
From: mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com (Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla)
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 05:21:28 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] Replacement for mozdev.org templates
In-Reply-To: <mailman.18.1214935019.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
References: <g48iev$2303$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>	<mailman.13.1214922650.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>	<g4djph$9s9$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<mailman.18.1214935019.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g4es7p$14he$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

Douglas E. Warner wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 July 2008 11:51:14 Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla 
> wrote:
>> I do wonder if this changes the browsers location bar to something like:
>> sub.domain.tlc/index.php?project=multizilla&page=/news/news.html ???
> 
> Looks like you have the gist of it.
> 
> -Doug

Getting there, but slowly ;)

It took me some time to figure out why my document root had to be 
different. The problem was the following rule. Which didn't work here:

RewriteRule ^ - [E=VHOST:${lowercase:%1},S=1]

%1 should normally represent the project name, in my case "multizilla". 
Howev, _SERVER["VHOST"] stayed empty so I changed the rule a little:

RewriteRule ^ - [E=VHOST:%1,S=1]

Just to make it work (it might be suboptimal and in that case please 
advise me what to do with it).

BTW what is ob_start(); and ob_end_flush(); for something?  I did a grep 
for it, but to no avail.

I am also getting two warnings about header modifications, failing 
because they are already sent. The strange thing is that the exact same 
pages/code work from mozdev.org

LOL I haven't been this productive in months.

Thanks,
Michael

From mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com  Tue Jul  1 21:27:01 2008
From: mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com (Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla)
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 06:27:01 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] Replacement for mozdev.org templates
In-Reply-To: <g4es7p$14he$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <g48iev$2303$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>	<mailman.13.1214922650.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>	<g4djph$9s9$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<mailman.18.1214935019.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g4es7p$14he$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g4f02l$1gl7$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla wrote:

<snip />

> BTW what is ob_start(); and ob_end_flush(); for something?  I did a grep 
> for it, but to no avail.

Ah, so you use output buffering. That might explain the error ;)

From belaviyo at gmail.com  Wed Jul  2 09:44:46 2008
From: belaviyo at gmail.com (joe ertaba)
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 20:14:46 +0330
Subject: [Project_owners] textbox in FF3
Message-ID: <23d9f6b20807020944v1ee9d164p8958669458ebaced@mail.gmail.com>

Hi

FF3 has new feature : emptytext that shows some text when value is empty

<textbox  emptyText="some text" />

but it doesn't work in above example ! any idea ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080702/4b3156dd/attachment.html>

From johnm555 at gmail.com  Wed Jul  2 10:32:19 2008
From: johnm555 at gmail.com (John Marshall)
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 13:32:19 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] textbox in FF3
In-Reply-To: <23d9f6b20807020944v1ee9d164p8958669458ebaced@mail.gmail.com>
References: <23d9f6b20807020944v1ee9d164p8958669458ebaced@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4e7ecbc40807021032v2627abedr6d194197b081c119@mail.gmail.com>

The property is emptyText, the attribute is emptytext

On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 12:44 PM, joe ertaba <belaviyo at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> FF3 has new feature : emptytext that shows some text when value is empty
>
> <textbox  emptyText="some text" />
>
> but it doesn't work in above example ! any idea ?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080702/058692e1/attachment.html>

From eric.jung at yahoo.com  Wed Jul  2 13:50:50 2008
From: eric.jung at yahoo.com (Eric H. Jung)
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 13:50:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Project_owners] Replacement for mozdev.org templates
Message-ID: <933028.13722.qm@web30306.mail.mud.yahoo.com>





----- Original Message ----
> From: "Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla" <mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com>
> To: project_owners at mozdev.org
> Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2008 12:27:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [Project_owners] Replacement for mozdev.org templates
> 
> Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla wrote:

Now don't go starting http://michaels-mozdev.org  :)


      

From o.e.ekker at gmail.com  Wed Jul  2 14:18:48 2008
From: o.e.ekker at gmail.com (Onno Ekker)
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:18:48 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] Grids
Message-ID: <g4grbl$1hcv$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

Hi,

I have in my xul two grids with two columns each, both in a seperate 
groupbox. I'd like both columns of both grids to have the same width, 
but I can't seem to find the width of the current columns.

   nodelist = document.getElementsByTagName('row');
   for (var i = 0; i < nodelist.length; i++) {
     var width1 = nodelist[i].firstChild.boxObject.width; dump(width1);
     var width2 = nodelist[i].lastChild.boxObject.width; dump(width2);
   }

width1 and width2 are always 0.

Is it possible at all to get and set these widths?
Is there another way to calculate the width of the label?
Or should I get the length of the label's values and then set width to x
em?

Onno

From mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com  Wed Jul  2 16:21:02 2008
From: mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com (Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla)
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 01:21:02 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] Replacement for mozdev.org templates
In-Reply-To: <mailman.43.1215031860.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
References: <mailman.43.1215031860.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g4h2gv$26pp$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

Eric H. Jung wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: "Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla" <mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com>
>> To: project_owners at mozdev.org
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2008 12:27:01 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Project_owners] Replacement for mozdev.org templates
>>
>> Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla wrote:
> 
> Now don't go starting http://michaels-mozdev.org  :)

Why would I do that?  After all, I am still very grateful to be part of 
this wonderful community.  Listen, Doug has been a great help, and from 
day on, but I just needed a system (toolbox) that can help me explore 
and understand new things.

Setting up Apache2 and PHP5 on my box was fun, sure, but that will only 
help me to fix PHP errors, which I'm afraid show up too commonly in the 
log files over at mozdev.org

I do plan to write a wiki page for people who want to install and setup 
a simple hovercraft system on their box :)

Michael

From eric.jung at yahoo.com  Wed Jul  2 21:10:22 2008
From: eric.jung at yahoo.com (Eric H. Jung)
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 21:10:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Project_owners] Grids
Message-ID: <598640.76595.qm@web30304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>





----- Original Message ----
> From: Onno Ekker <o.e.ekker at gmail.com>
> To: project_owners at mozdev.org
> Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2008 5:18:48 PM
> Subject: [Project_owners] Grids
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have in my xul two grids with two columns each, both in a seperate 
> groupbox. I'd like both columns of both grids to have the same width, 
> but I can't seem to find the width of the current columns.
> 
>    nodelist = document.getElementsByTagName('row');
>    for (var i = 0; i < nodelist.length; i++) {
>      var width1 = nodelist[i].firstChild.boxObject.width; dump(width1);
>      var width2 = nodelist[i].lastChild.boxObject.width; dump(width2);
>    }
> 
> width1 and width2 are always 0.
> 
> Is it possible at all to get and set these widths?
> Is there another way to calculate the width of the label?
> Or should I get the length of the label's values and then set width to x
> em?

Assuming your XUL is of this structure, try this:

<grid><columns id=cols1"><column/><column/></columns><rows><row ... /></rows></grid>
<grid><columns id=cols2"><column/><column/></columns><rows><row ...
/></rows></grid>

/* Set widths of columns of 2nd grid to widths of columns of first grid. Untested */
var cols1=document.getElementById("cols1"),
  cols2=document.getElementById("cols2");

for (var i=0, sz=cols1.childNodes.length; i<sz; i++) {
  var width = document.defaultView.getComputedStyle(cols1.childNodes[i], "width").width); /* might be a cleaner way */
  dump("width of col " + i + " " + width);
  cols2.childNodes[i].setAttribute("style", "width: " + width); /* overwrites other styles if they exist! */
}

Eric


      

From o.e.ekker at gmail.com  Thu Jul  3 04:34:04 2008
From: o.e.ekker at gmail.com (Onno Ekker)
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 13:34:04 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] Grids
In-Reply-To: <598640.76595.qm@web30304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <598640.76595.qm@web30304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <767de81b0807030434i4a02b51fg9bbc4c6a19ef5818@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Eric H. Jung <eric.jung at yahoo.com> wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Onno Ekker <o.e.ekker at gmail.com>
> > To: project_owners at mozdev.org
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2008 5:18:48 PM
> > Subject: [Project_owners] Grids
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have in my xul two grids with two columns each, both in a seperate
> > groupbox. I'd like both columns of both grids to have the same width,
> > but I can't seem to find the width of the current columns.
> >
> >    nodelist = document.getElementsByTagName('row');
> >    for (var i = 0; i < nodelist.length; i++) {
> >      var width1 = nodelist[i].firstChild.boxObject.width; dump(width1);
> >      var width2 = nodelist[i].lastChild.boxObject.width; dump(width2);
> >    }
> >
> > width1 and width2 are always 0.
> >
> > Is it possible at all to get and set these widths?
> > Is there another way to calculate the width of the label?
> > Or should I get the length of the label's values and then set width to x
> > em?
>
> Assuming your XUL is of this structure, try this:
>
> <grid><columns id=cols1"><column/><column/></columns><rows><row ...
> /></rows></grid>
> <grid><columns id=cols2"><column/><column/></columns><rows><row ...
> /></rows></grid>
>
> /* Set widths of columns of 2nd grid to widths of columns of first grid.
> Untested */
> var cols1=document.getElementById("cols1"),
>  cols2=document.getElementById("cols2");
>
> for (var i=0, sz=cols1.childNodes.length; i<sz; i++) {
>  var width = document.defaultView.getComputedStyle(cols1.childNodes[i],
> "width").width); /* might be a cleaner way */
>  dump("width of col " + i + " " + width);
>  cols2.childNodes[i].setAttribute("style", "width: " + width); /*
> overwrites other styles if they exist! */
> }


Thanks!

So (defaultView.)getComputedStyle is my friend.
I'll try it out tonight, and see if I change the code to step over the
columns instead of the rows. It may be cleaner, but will be more code, since
I have to step over both the rows in cols1 and cols2 to calculate max-width
and set it on both grids too. But than again: that may be the drawback of
cleaner code and it`s well possible that it`s not only cleaner, but also
more efficient...

Onno
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080703/a5af9f17/attachment.html>

From neil at parkwaycc.co.uk  Thu Jul  3 06:14:29 2008
From: neil at parkwaycc.co.uk (Neil)
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:14:29 +0100
Subject: [Project_owners] Grids
In-Reply-To: <g4grbl$1hcv$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <g4grbl$1hcv$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g4ijbp$1lqb$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

Onno Ekker wrote:

> I have in my xul two grids with two columns each, both in a seperate 
> groupbox. I'd like both columns of both grids to have the same width, 
> but I can't seem to find the width of the current columns.
>
>   nodelist = document.getElementsByTagName('row');
>   for (var i = 0; i < nodelist.length; i++) {
>     var width1 = nodelist[i].firstChild.boxObject.width; dump(width1);
>     var width2 = nodelist[i].lastChild.boxObject.width; dump(width2);
>   }
>
> width1 and width2 are always 0.

I can't see why that might be but did you try looking at the box objects 
of the <column> elements?

From o.e.ekker at gmail.com  Thu Jul  3 07:44:36 2008
From: o.e.ekker at gmail.com (Onno Ekker)
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:44:36 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] Grids
In-Reply-To: <g4ijbp$1lqb$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <g4grbl$1hcv$1@mozdev.mozdev.org> <g4ijbp$1lqb$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <767de81b0807030744v58fac06ak30a7c881525a3968@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Neil <neil at parkwaycc.co.uk> wrote:

> Onno Ekker wrote:
>
>  I have in my xul two grids with two columns each, both in a seperate
>> groupbox. I'd like both columns of both grids to have the same width, but I
>> can't seem to find the width of the current columns.
>>
>>  nodelist = document.getElementsByTagName('row');
>>  for (var i = 0; i < nodelist.length; i++) {
>>    var width1 = nodelist[i].firstChild.boxObject.width; dump(width1);
>>    var width2 = nodelist[i].lastChild.boxObject.width; dump(width2);
>>  }
>>
>> width1 and width2 are always 0.
>>
>
> I can't see why that might be but did you try looking at the box objects of
> the <column> elements?


No, I tried looking at the row elements.
DOM looks like this (from the top of my head):
<grid>
<columns><column/><column/></columns>
<rows>
<row><label value label=.../><label value=.../></row>
...
</rows>
</grid>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080703/9a2272cf/attachment.html>

From neil at parkwaycc.co.uk  Thu Jul  3 08:42:57 2008
From: neil at parkwaycc.co.uk (Neil)
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 16:42:57 +0100
Subject: [Project_owners] Grids
In-Reply-To: <mailman.49.1215096285.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
References: <g4grbl$1hcv$1@mozdev.mozdev.org> <g4ijbp$1lqb$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<mailman.49.1215096285.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g4is21$2i2u$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

Onno Ekker wrote:

> DOM looks like this (from the top of my head):
> <grid>
> <columns><column/><column/></columns>

Yes, but these <column/> elements should have the correct width (and the 
same height as the grid).

From o.e.ekker at gmail.com  Thu Jul  3 12:31:49 2008
From: o.e.ekker at gmail.com (Onno Ekker)
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:31:49 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] Grids
In-Reply-To: <g4is21$2i2u$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <g4grbl$1hcv$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<g4ijbp$1lqb$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>	<mailman.49.1215096285.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g4is21$2i2u$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <486D2925.3070006@gmail.com>

Neil wrote:
> Onno Ekker wrote:
>
>> DOM looks like this (from the top of my head):
>> <grid>
>> <columns><column/><column/></columns>
>
> Yes, but these <column/> elements should have the correct width (and 
> the same height as the grid).
It's most probably a timing issue: I try to calculate the width before 
the window is actually displayed. When I inspect the window later on 
with DOMi it displays the right widths for the columns.

Now let's see how I can activate the javascript after the width is 
calculated....

Onno

From jesper at heroes-addon.dk  Thu Jul  3 12:57:29 2008
From: jesper at heroes-addon.dk (Jesper Staun Hansen)
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:57:29 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] Grids
In-Reply-To: <486D2925.3070006@gmail.com>
References: <g4grbl$1hcv$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>	<g4ijbp$1lqb$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>	<mailman.49.1215096285.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>	<g4is21$2i2u$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<486D2925.3070006@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <486D2F29.3040209@heroes-addon.dk>

Onno Ekker wrote:
> Neil wrote:
>> Onno Ekker wrote:
>>
>>> DOM looks like this (from the top of my head):
>>> <grid>
>>> <columns><column/><column/></columns>
>>
>> Yes, but these <column/> elements should have the correct width (and 
>> the same height as the grid).
> It's most probably a timing issue: I try to calculate the width before 
> the window is actually displayed. When I inspect the window later on 
> with DOMi it displays the right widths for the columns.
>
> Now let's see how I can activate the javascript after the width is 
> calculated....
>
> Onno
Possible to add an eventlistener with a onDOMChange (kinda) perhaps and 
listen for width change to reset it each time its not right?

From o.e.ekker at gmail.com  Thu Jul  3 13:35:28 2008
From: o.e.ekker at gmail.com (Onno Ekker)
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 22:35:28 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] Grids
In-Reply-To: <486D2925.3070006@gmail.com>
References: <g4grbl$1hcv$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<g4ijbp$1lqb$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>	<mailman.49.1215096285.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g4is21$2i2u$1@mozdev.mozdev.org> <486D2925.3070006@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <486D3810.4000906@gmail.com>

Onno Ekker wrote:
> Neil wrote:
>> Onno Ekker wrote:
>>
>>> DOM looks like this (from the top of my head):
>>> <grid>
>>> <columns><column/><column/></columns>
>>
>> Yes, but these <column/> elements should have the correct width (and 
>> the same height as the grid).
> It's most probably a timing issue: I try to calculate the width before 
> the window is actually displayed. When I inspect the window later on 
> with DOMi it displays the right widths for the columns.
>
> Now let's see how I can activate the javascript after the width is 
> calculated....
First, with width=0, I had added onload handler to my prefpane.
After changing this to the window everything works fine.
Thank for the help.

Onno

From o.e.ekker at gmail.com  Thu Jul  3 13:35:39 2008
From: o.e.ekker at gmail.com (Onno Ekker)
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 22:35:39 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] Grids
In-Reply-To: <598640.76595.qm@web30304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <598640.76595.qm@web30304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <486D381B.8020606@gmail.com>

Eric H. Jung wrote:
> Onno wrote:
>> I have in my xul two grids with two columns each, both in a seperate 
>> groupbox. I'd like both columns of both grids to have the same width, 
>> but I can't seem to find the width of the current columns.
>> ....
>> Is it possible at all to get and set these widths?
>> Is there another way to calculate the width of the label?
>> Or should I get the length of the label's values and then set width to x
>> em?
>>     
>
> Assuming your XUL is of this structure, try this:
>
> <grid><columns id=cols1"><column/><column/></columns><rows><row ... /></rows></grid>
> <grid><columns id=cols2"><column/><column/></columns><rows><row ...
> /></rows></grid>
>
> /* Set widths of columns of 2nd grid to widths of columns of first grid. Untested */
> var cols1=document.getElementById("cols1"),
>   cols2=document.getElementById("cols2");
>
> for (var i=0, sz=cols1.childNodes.length; i<sz; i++) {
>   var width = document.defaultView.getComputedStyle(cols1.childNodes[i], "width").width); /* might be a cleaner way */
>   dump("width of col " + i + " " + width);
>   cols2.childNodes[i].setAttribute("style", "width: " + width); /* overwrites other styles if they exist! */
> }
>
>   
This works like a charm, now. Next problem is that resizing both columns 
leaves my window too small, so that needs resizing too now. I can 
probably find it's current size and add the differences to that too in 
much the same way.

Onno

From mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com  Thu Jul  3 18:55:29 2008
From: mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com (Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla)
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 03:55:29 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] Oops, wrong newsgroup (to Eric H. Jung)
Message-ID: <g4jvug$31f6$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

I just found this in: mozilla.dev.extensions

----- Original Message ----
 > > From: "Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla" 
<mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com>

 >> > > Now don't go starting http://michaels-mozdev.org   :)
 > >
 > > Why would I do that?

I didn't really think you would. It was meant tongue-in-cheek, hence the 
smiley face.

Yeah I know, but just to be sure ;)

 > > I do plan to write a wiki page for people who want to install and 
setup
 > > a simple hovercraft system on their box  :)

That would be really cool. I hope you put it on the mozdev wiki, the 
more so since the hovercraft project itself is long-since dead AFAIK.

Eric

From mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com  Thu Jul  3 18:58:52 2008
From: mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com (Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla)
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 03:58:52 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] Oops, wrong newsgroup (to Eric H. Jung)
In-Reply-To: <g4jvug$31f6$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <g4jvug$31f6$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g4k04u$oj$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla wrote:
> I just found this in: mozilla.dev.extensions
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
>  > > From: "Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla" 
> <mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com>
> 
>  >> > > Now don't go starting http://michaels-mozdev.org   :)
>  > >
>  > > Why would I do that?
> 
> I didn't really think you would. It was meant tongue-in-cheek, hence the 
> smiley face.
> 
> Yeah I know, but just to be sure ;)
> 
>  > > I do plan to write a wiki page for people who want to install and 
> setup
>  > > a simple hovercraft system on their box  :)
> 
> That would be really cool. I hope you put it on the mozdev wiki, the 
> more so since the hovercraft project itself is long-since dead AFAIK.
> 
> Eric

I haven't used the wiki yet, but that should be relatively easy I guess.

People with Apache2 and PHP5 pre-installed should be able to install 
everything in under 10 minutes.  It took me a lot longer, but hey I was 
here first ;)

Michael

From philip at aleytys.pc.my  Thu Jul  3 21:58:49 2008
From: philip at aleytys.pc.my (Philip Chee)
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:58:49 +0800
Subject: [Project_owners] Replacement for mozdev.org templates
In-Reply-To: <g4h2gv$26pp$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <mailman.43.1215031860.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g4h2gv$26pp$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g4kah2$10ej$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 01:21:02 +0200, Michael Vincent van Rantwijk,
MultiZilla wrote:

> I do plan to write a wiki page for people who want to install and setup 
> a simple hovercraft system on their box :)

Did you solve the "hovercraft full of eels" problem?

Phil

-- 
Philip Chee <philip at aleytys.pc.my>, <philip.chee at gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
[ ]Illiterate?  Write for a free brochure!
* TagZilla 0.066.6


From mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com  Thu Jul  3 23:21:06 2008
From: mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com (Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla)
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:21:06 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] Replacement for mozdev.org templates
In-Reply-To: <g4kah2$10ej$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <mailman.43.1215031860.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g4h2gv$26pp$1@mozdev.mozdev.org> <g4kah2$10ej$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g4kfgh$1faa$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

Philip Chee wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 01:21:02 +0200, Michael Vincent van Rantwijk,
> MultiZilla wrote:
> 
>> I do plan to write a wiki page for people who want to install and setup 
>> a simple hovercraft system on their box :)
> 
> Did you solve the "hovercraft full of eels" problem?
> 
> Phil
> 

Eh?  Saya tidak faham ;)

From o.e.ekker at gmail.com  Fri Jul  4 01:31:53 2008
From: o.e.ekker at gmail.com (Onno Ekker)
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 10:31:53 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] Grids
In-Reply-To: <486D381B.8020606@gmail.com>
References: <598640.76595.qm@web30304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<486D381B.8020606@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <486DDFF9.3010008@gmail.com>

Onno Ekker wrote:
> Eric H. Jung wrote:
>> Onno wrote:
>>> I have in my xul two grids with two columns each, both in a seperate 
>>> groupbox. I'd like both columns of both grids to have the same 
>>> width, but I can't seem to find the width of the current columns.
>>> ....
>>> Is it possible at all to get and set these widths?
>>> Is there another way to calculate the width of the label?
>>> Or should I get the length of the label's values and then set width 
>>> to x
>>> em?
>>>     
>>
>> Assuming your XUL is of this structure, try this:
>>
>> <grid><columns id=cols1"><column/><column/></columns><rows><row ... 
>> /></rows></grid>
>> <grid><columns id=cols2"><column/><column/></columns><rows><row ...
>> /></rows></grid>
>>
>> /* Set widths of columns of 2nd grid to widths of columns of first 
>> grid. Untested */
>> var cols1=document.getElementById("cols1"),
>>   cols2=document.getElementById("cols2");
>>
>> for (var i=0, sz=cols1.childNodes.length; i<sz; i++) {
>>   var width = 
>> document.defaultView.getComputedStyle(cols1.childNodes[i], 
>> "width").width); /* might be a cleaner way */
>>   dump("width of col " + i + " " + width);
>>   cols2.childNodes[i].setAttribute("style", "width: " + width); /* 
>> overwrites other styles if they exist! */
>> }
>>
>>   
> This works like a charm, now. Next problem is that resizing both 
> columns leaves my window too small, so that needs resizing too now. I 
> can probably find it's current size and add the differences to that 
> too in much the same way.
Looks like I was cheering too early.

I set the grids/rows/columns contents from the same script as I use to 
calculate the width. The width I read is still 0 (sometimes)...

Maybe I should add an eventlistener to onDOMChange, like Jesper 
suggested, to wait for the changes I made to bubble through? Or is there 
a better way to deal with this timing problem?

Onno

From neil at parkwaycc.co.uk  Fri Jul  4 02:42:06 2008
From: neil at parkwaycc.co.uk (Neil)
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 10:42:06 +0100
Subject: [Project_owners] Replacement for mozdev.org templates
In-Reply-To: <g4kfgh$1faa$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <mailman.43.1215031860.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g4h2gv$26pp$1@mozdev.mozdev.org> <g4kah2$10ej$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<g4kfgh$1faa$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g4kr9h$2j2h$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla wrote:

> Philip Chee wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 01:21:02 +0200, Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, 
>> MultiZilla wrote:
>>
>>> I do plan to write a wiki page for people who want to install and 
>>> setup a simple hovercraft system on their box :)
>>
>> Did you solve the "hovercraft full of eels" problem?
>>
>> Phil
>
> Eh?  Saya tidak faham ;)

http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/hungry.htm for those not in the know.

From philip at aleytys.pc.my  Fri Jul  4 04:02:38 2008
From: philip at aleytys.pc.my (Philip Chee)
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 19:02:38 +0800
Subject: [Project_owners] Replacement for mozdev.org templates
In-Reply-To: <g4kfgh$1faa$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <mailman.43.1215031860.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g4h2gv$26pp$1@mozdev.mozdev.org> <g4kah2$10ej$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<g4kfgh$1faa$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g4kvr5$a48$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:21:06 +0200, Michael Vincent van Rantwijk,
MultiZilla wrote:
> Philip Chee wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 01:21:02 +0200, Michael Vincent van Rantwijk,
>> MultiZilla wrote:
>> 
>>> I do plan to write a wiki page for people who want to install and setup 
>>> a simple hovercraft system on their box :)
>> 
>> Did you solve the "hovercraft full of eels" problem?
>> 
>> Phil

It's python (Monthy Python, not the language)

> Eh?  Saya tidak faham ;)

(Hmm. I guess you know some Indonesian being Dutch)

Phil

-- 
Philip Chee <philip at aleytys.pc.my>, <philip.chee at gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
[ ]Plagarism prohibited.  Derive carefully.
* TagZilla 0.066.6


From mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com  Fri Jul  4 18:21:11 2008
From: mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com (Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla)
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2008 03:21:11 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] Replacement for mozdev.org templates
In-Reply-To: <g4kvr5$a48$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <mailman.43.1215031860.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g4h2gv$26pp$1@mozdev.mozdev.org> <g4kah2$10ej$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<g4kfgh$1faa$1@mozdev.mozdev.org> <g4kvr5$a48$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g4mia7$22s6$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

Philip Chee wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:21:06 +0200, Michael Vincent van Rantwijk,
> MultiZilla wrote:
>> Philip Chee wrote:
>>> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 01:21:02 +0200, Michael Vincent van Rantwijk,
>>> MultiZilla wrote:
>>>
>>>> I do plan to write a wiki page for people who want to install and setup 
>>>> a simple hovercraft system on their box :)
>>> Did you solve the "hovercraft full of eels" problem?
>>>
>>> Phil
> 
> It's python (Monthy Python, not the language)

Now I really wonder how old you are (since the movie was released in 
1971, which is like 20 years before my arrival on this planet ;)

>> Eh?  Saya tidak faham ;)
> 
> (Hmm. I guess you know some Indonesian being Dutch)

I have family members in many different countries, even on Bali ;)

From danvb30-firefox at yahoo.com  Mon Jul  7 10:51:18 2008
From: danvb30-firefox at yahoo.com (danvb30-firefox at yahoo.com)
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 10:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Project_owners] Awaiting extension upgrade approval
Message-ID: <378202.32277.qm@web30506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I have updated my Firefox extension to be compatible with FF 3.0, and submitted it for review (I think).  It's been a week and haven't heard anything. 

Just wondering: 
(a) how long reviews are taking these days, I'm assuming reviewers are swamped with 3.0 compatibility issues
(b) if I failed to perform a step to get it in the review queue properly.  (submitted it via the "Upload New Version" tool online at AMO Developer Tools)

Is there any way to find out where (of IF) I am in the review queue?

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1288

Thanks!
-Dan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080707/4ffb6357/attachment.html>

From o.e.ekker at gmail.com  Mon Jul  7 11:56:50 2008
From: o.e.ekker at gmail.com (Onno Ekker)
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 20:56:50 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] Awaiting extension upgrade approval
In-Reply-To: <378202.32277.qm@web30506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <378202.32277.qm@web30506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <767de81b0807071156l43a9cf6ay77375f89d8cdbd96@mail.gmail.com>

You can see if your addon is nominated. If it's nominated, it's in the
queue.
Current queue depth is about 200 updates and 400 new extensions, or the
other way round, can`t remember.
Editors won't give you average throughput, since there is no such thing.
They don't handle the queue in fifo order, but do it random (or first the
ones they like best?)
You can query in channel #addons on irc.mozilla.org for more info.
And asking an editor there to review your extension might help too. (It did
for me, but I waited 6 weeks before asking)

Onno

On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 7:51 PM, <danvb30-firefox at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I have updated my Firefox extension to be compatible with FF 3.0, and
> submitted it for review (I think).  It's been a week and haven't heard
> anything.
>
> Just wondering:
> (a) how long reviews are taking these days, I'm assuming reviewers are
> swamped with 3.0 compatibility issues
> (b) if I failed to perform a step to get it in the review queue properly.
> (submitted it via the "Upload New Version" tool online at AMO Developer
> Tools)
>
> Is there any way to find out where (of IF) I am in the review queue?
>
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1288
>
> Thanks!
> -Dan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080707/2ab7ff6e/attachment.html>

From varun21 at gmail.com  Mon Jul  7 12:05:38 2008
From: varun21 at gmail.com (Shivanand Sharma / Varun)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 00:35:38 +0530
Subject: [Project_owners] Awaiting extension upgrade approval
In-Reply-To: <767de81b0807071156l43a9cf6ay77375f89d8cdbd96@mail.gmail.com>
References: <378202.32277.qm@web30506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<767de81b0807071156l43a9cf6ay77375f89d8cdbd96@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1a9fd9700807071205ke043c60i1bd9694c37a1ab6f@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Dan,

I've reviewed and pushed your addon to public. I understand that you had
only updated the maxversion in the extension for compatibility with Firefox
3. In the future you can use the option under developer tools to update the
max version. That ways you don't have to upload your new xpi and reviewers
will not need to review it. Thanks for the update.

Regards
Shivanand Sharma
http://binaryturf.com


On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Onno Ekker <o.e.ekker at gmail.com> wrote:

> You can see if your addon is nominated. If it's nominated, it's in the
> queue.
> Current queue depth is about 200 updates and 400 new extensions, or the
> other way round, can`t remember.
> Editors won't give you average throughput, since there is no such thing.
> They don't handle the queue in fifo order, but do it random (or first the
> ones they like best?)
> You can query in channel #addons on irc.mozilla.org for more info.
> And asking an editor there to review your extension might help too. (It did
> for me, but I waited 6 weeks before asking)
>
> Onno
>
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 7:51 PM, <danvb30-firefox at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I have updated my Firefox extension to be compatible with FF 3.0, and
>> submitted it for review (I think).  It's been a week and haven't heard
>> anything.
>>
>> Just wondering:
>> (a) how long reviews are taking these days, I'm assuming reviewers are
>> swamped with 3.0 compatibility issues
>> (b) if I failed to perform a step to get it in the review queue properly.
>> (submitted it via the "Upload New Version" tool online at AMO Developer
>> Tools)
>>
>> Is there any way to find out where (of IF) I am in the review queue?
>>
>> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1288
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -Dan
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Project_owners mailing list
>> Project_owners at mozdev.org
>> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
>


-- 
Cheers!
Shivanand Sharma
Editor: http://binaryturf.com
Technology, Design, Monetization
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080708/6acbc5f2/attachment.html>

From johnrw at gmail.com  Mon Jul  7 12:55:42 2008
From: johnrw at gmail.com (John Woods)
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 15:55:42 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] Awaiting extension upgrade approval
In-Reply-To: <378202.32277.qm@web30506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <378202.32277.qm@web30506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f7910e810807071255v13972f57o51628008972d3cf0@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:51 PM,  <danvb30-firefox at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have updated my Firefox extension to be compatible with FF 3.0, and
> submitted it for review (I think).  It's been a week and haven't heard
> anything.
>
> Just wondering:
> (a) how long reviews are taking these days, I'm assuming reviewers are
> swamped with 3.0 compatibility issues
> (b) if I failed to perform a step to get it in the review queue properly.
> (submitted it via the "Upload New Version" tool online at AMO Developer
> Tools)
>
> Is there any way to find out where (of IF) I am in the review queue?
>
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1288
>
> Thanks!
> -Dan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
>

There is no fifo queue as one might think. Mine has been
 there 2 weeks already and still no joy. As I understand it,
'Editors' can pretty much choose any extension they want.

World Record downloads in a day, and none of those
downloads can use my extension. It's disjointed.
But those who control the ui of the browser, seem
to keep saying to make something 'an extension.'

Take the Open New Tab Button on tab bar extension.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1456

It wasn't available. I got on irc... and was pretty
angry, about having to use a browser with a ui I hate...
so someone there named mzz rolled one up.
Took us all night. For any of you folks who 'liked' the old
way... that is available here...
http://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/7731
It works with FF3.

Wasn't mozilla going to hire some full time
reviewers?

regards,
john

From silfreed at silfreed.net  Mon Jul  7 12:56:56 2008
From: silfreed at silfreed.net (Douglas E. Warner)
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 15:56:56 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] Announcing Mercurial at Mozdev
Message-ID: <200807071556.56433.silfreed@silfreed.net>

We're happy to announce the availability of Mercurial for hosting project 
sources at Mozdev.


Documentation can be found here:
http://www.mozdev.org/drupal/wiki/MozdevMercurial


The biggest caveats:
* CVS is still necessary for maintaining the website and downloads (fixing 
this is on our roadmap)
* Projects' source information page needs updated by the PO to include 
information on Mercurial
* We weren't planning on removing the old sources from CVS and we don't have 
a mechanism for locking CVS, so it might slightly confusing to new users or 
contributors as to where to get the canonical source for a project if they 
switch to from CVS to Mercurial


If you're interested in having Mercurial setup for your project, head over 
to the documentation page [1] and click the link to request a new Mercurial 
repository.


-Doug


[1] http://www.mozdev.org/drupal/wiki/MozdevMercurial


-- 
Douglas E. Warner    <silfreed at silfreed.net>    Site Developer
Mozdev.org           http://www.mozdev.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080707/81b003e5/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080707/81b003e5/attachment.bin>

From mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com  Mon Jul  7 15:45:13 2008
From: mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com (Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:45:13 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] Awaiting extension upgrade approval
In-Reply-To: <mailman.112.1215460552.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
References: <378202.32277.qm@web30506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<mailman.112.1215460552.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g4u69q$28je$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

John Woods wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:51 PM,  <danvb30-firefox at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I have updated my Firefox extension to be compatible with FF 3.0, and
>> submitted it for review (I think).  It's been a week and haven't heard
>> anything.
>>
>> Just wondering:
>> (a) how long reviews are taking these days, I'm assuming reviewers are
>> swamped with 3.0 compatibility issues
>> (b) if I failed to perform a step to get it in the review queue properly.
>> (submitted it via the "Upload New Version" tool online at AMO Developer
>> Tools)
>>
>> Is there any way to find out where (of IF) I am in the review queue?
>>
>> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1288
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -Dan
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Project_owners mailing list
>> Project_owners at mozdev.org
>> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>
>>
> 
> There is no fifo queue as one might think. Mine has been
>  there 2 weeks already and still no joy. As I understand it,
> 'Editors' can pretty much choose any extension they want.

I guess that you are out of luck, at least if no one cares about your 
add-on.

> World Record downloads in a day, and none of those
> downloads can use my extension. It's disjointed.
> But those who control the ui of the browser, seem
> to keep saying to make something 'an extension.'

I wonder why people keep coming up with issues about MoSomthing because 
you don't need it. Really!


<snip />

> Wasn't mozilla going to hire some full time reviewers?

That was the story some time ago yes, but maybe it wasn't true or they 
rather wait for some fresh new interns to arrive ;)

Michael

From johnrw at gmail.com  Mon Jul  7 16:10:43 2008
From: johnrw at gmail.com (John Woods)
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 19:10:43 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] Awaiting extension upgrade approval
In-Reply-To: <g4u69q$28je$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <378202.32277.qm@web30506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<mailman.112.1215460552.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g4u69q$28je$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <f7910e810807071610q5ecfb1cepc7987cbc141497bb@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 6:45 PM, Michael Vincent van Rantwijk,
MultiZilla <mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com> wrote:
> John Woods wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:51 PM,  <danvb30-firefox at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have updated my Firefox extension to be compatible with FF 3.0, and
>>> submitted it for review (I think).  It's been a week and haven't heard
>>> anything.
>>>
>>> Just wondering:
>>> (a) how long reviews are taking these days, I'm assuming reviewers are
>>> swamped with 3.0 compatibility issues
>>> (b) if I failed to perform a step to get it in the review queue properly.
>>> (submitted it via the "Upload New Version" tool online at AMO Developer
>>> Tools)
>>>
>>> Is there any way to find out where (of IF) I am in the review queue?
>>>
>>> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1288
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> -Dan
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Project_owners mailing list
>>> Project_owners at mozdev.org
>>> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>>
>>>
>>
>> There is no fifo queue as one might think. Mine has been
>>  there 2 weeks already and still no joy. As I understand it,
>> 'Editors' can pretty much choose any extension they want.
>
> I guess that you are out of luck, at least if no one cares about your
> add-on.
>
>> World Record downloads in a day, and none of those
>> downloads can use my extension. It's disjointed.
>> But those who control the ui of the browser, seem
>> to keep saying to make something 'an extension.'
>
> I wonder why people keep coming up with issues about MoSomthing because you
> don't need it. Really!

You kinda lost me here... what is not needed? Amo?


>
>
> <snip />
>
>> Wasn't mozilla going to hire some full time reviewers?
>
> That was the story some time ago yes, but maybe it wasn't true or they
> rather wait for some fresh new interns to arrive ;)
>
> Michael
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>

Well here are the last 3 comments on the extension... at amo's site.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/33

#

    This is by far the best add-on I use. My FF3 is hurting without this.

by Peter Ceballo on July 7, 2008
#

    Googlebar is a must have for me so unless there is a compatible
version of Firefox then the latter does not get upgraded.

by Martin Platt on July 6, 2008
#

    Big Fan!

    Too many days without it. I registered only to let you John that
I'm really grateful for your work. I love it and thank you for
updating it. :)

From mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com  Mon Jul  7 19:29:57 2008
From: mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com (Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 04:29:57 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] Awaiting extension upgrade approval
In-Reply-To: <mailman.120.1215472257.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
References: <378202.32277.qm@web30506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<mailman.112.1215460552.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>	<g4u69q$28je$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<mailman.120.1215472257.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g4ujf5$dgc$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

John Woods wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 6:45 PM, Michael Vincent van Rantwijk,
> MultiZilla <mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip />

>>> World Record downloads in a day, and none of those
>>> downloads can use my extension. It's disjointed.
>>> But those who control the ui of the browser, seem
>>> to keep saying to make something 'an extension.'
>> I wonder why people keep coming up with issues about MoSomthing because you
>> don't need it. Really!
> 
> You kinda lost me here... what is not needed? Amo?

AMO isn't an absolute necessity to release new versions of your 
software. Surely you must know that by now, especially since you post 
here ;)

>> <snip />
>>
>>> Wasn't mozilla going to hire some full time reviewers?
>> That was the story some time ago yes, but maybe it wasn't true or they
>> rather wait for some fresh new interns to arrive ;)
>>
>> Michael
>> _______________________________________________
>> Project_owners mailing list
>> Project_owners at mozdev.org
>> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>
> 
> Well here are the last 3 comments on the extension... at amo's site.
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/33
> 
> #
> 
>     This is by far the best add-on I use. My FF3 is hurting without this.
> 
> by Peter Ceballo on July 7, 2008
> #
> 
>     Googlebar is a must have for me so unless there is a compatible
> version of Firefox then the latter does not get upgraded.
> 
> by Martin Platt on July 6, 2008
> #
> 
>     Big Fan!
> 
>     Too many days without it. I registered only to let you John that
> I'm really grateful for your work. I love it and thank you for
> updating it. :)

I'm not one to comment on whether add-on X is any good or not, simply 
because that is, in my view, entirely up to the end-users and supports 
of it.

I would however like to advise you to open your favorite IRC proggy and 
go beg for support (insert you devils smiley here).  Now seriously, this 
has got to change a.s.a.p.  I agree. And totally!

Michael

From philip at aleytys.pc.my  Mon Jul  7 19:54:15 2008
From: philip at aleytys.pc.my (Philip Chee)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 10:54:15 +0800
Subject: [Project_owners] Announcing Mercurial at Mozdev
In-Reply-To: <mailman.113.1215460633.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
References: <mailman.113.1215460633.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g4ukn0$hku$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 15:56:56 -0400, Douglas E. Warner wrote:

> We're happy to announce the availability of Mercurial for hosting project 
> sources at Mozdev.
> 
> Documentation can be found here:
> http://www.mozdev.org/drupal/wiki/MozdevMercurial

Doug,

s/hg.vebzom.org/hg.mozdev.org/

Phil

-- 
Philip Chee <philip at aleytys.pc.my>, <philip.chee at gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
[ ]Fatal mouse error. (B)ury or (R)eplace?
* TagZilla 0.066.6


From o.e.ekker at gmail.com  Mon Jul  7 23:13:17 2008
From: o.e.ekker at gmail.com (Onno Ekker)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 08:13:17 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] Awaiting extension upgrade approval
In-Reply-To: <g4ujf5$dgc$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <378202.32277.qm@web30506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<mailman.112.1215460552.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g4u69q$28je$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<mailman.120.1215472257.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g4ujf5$dgc$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <767de81b0807072313n584fa02ch5829f5431c90b2da@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 4:29 AM, Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla <
mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com> wrote:

> AMO isn't an absolute necessity to release new versions of your software.
> Surely you must know that by now, especially since you post here ;)
>

You don't need AMO, but it helps greatly getting your extention to end
users. I have a small Thunderbird extension and had about 2 downloads a day
on mozdev, 5 on AMO before going public and now 30...

Most end users on AMO won't go looking for an update on your project
website. They won't even realize there might be a newer version there, or in
the sandbox.


I would however like to advise you to open your favorite IRC proggy and go
> beg for support (insert you devils smiley here).  Now seriously, this has
> got to change a.s.a.p.  I agree. And totally!


Project owners could have helped to take the strain from editors too, by not
waiting for the next major release to update their add-on, but starting with
it as soon as the first alpha was released (or even before that). Once an
extension is compatible (and reviewed), you only need to bump maxVersion if
it stays compatible and no further reviewing is necessary for that. Some
project owners probably have done that, but others have waited too long and
now suffer the consequences of that.

If you don't like the way AMO/reviewing is working, it might be an idea to
file a bug for it. Or vote for one, if you can find an existing one. But
(all/most?) reviewers are volunteers, just like you and me, and they do
their best to review each add-on.

Onno
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080708/98ef9855/attachment.html>

From frisco82 at gmail.com  Mon Jul  7 23:31:06 2008
From: frisco82 at gmail.com (Ramiro Aparicio)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 03:31:06 -0300
Subject: [Project_owners] Awaiting extension upgrade approval
In-Reply-To: <767de81b0807072313n584fa02ch5829f5431c90b2da@mail.gmail.com>
References: <378202.32277.qm@web30506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<mailman.112.1215460552.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g4u69q$28je$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<mailman.120.1215472257.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g4ujf5$dgc$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<767de81b0807072313n584fa02ch5829f5431c90b2da@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <607c3f4d0807072331u7f8fcd19of171600ad51055c7@mail.gmail.com>

I think AMO is important and with the increased interaction on firefox 3 it
is more important than ever, the idea es to have a repository with all
extension, themes... which is great but if every extension update has to
wait for 3-4 weeks to be reviewed then thats your bottleneck, and it should
be done something to address that problem, also the bag instead FIFO system
really sucks, at least try to promote the older unreviewed extensions or
whatever.

In my case a extension with more than 120.000 users (AMO stats) have been
waiting in the bag for 3 weeks, the last weekend I released an update to fix
a bunch of bugs and we will see when it will be reviewed.

And Onno, releasing in advance of FF release would be a great idea if they
stop making last minute changes, I had to change a lot of code between RC1
and RC2 becouse of the new security restrictions that were added and 3 days
before download day I was filling a bug due to a regression in RC3.

I don't know whats the best system probably you don't have to pay for
reviewers, but make a good campaign to get more, give them points for
reviews and let them get some free merchandising with the points, and
probably you will reduce the problem a lot.

Hasta Otra

Ramiro Aparicio

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Desarrollador de FoxGame http://foxgame.mozdev.org
Blogero aficionado en http://www.habitaquo.net

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 3:13 AM, Onno Ekker <o.e.ekker at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 4:29 AM, Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla <
> mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> AMO isn't an absolute necessity to release new versions of your software.
>> Surely you must know that by now, especially since you post here ;)
>>
>
> You don't need AMO, but it helps greatly getting your extention to end
> users. I have a small Thunderbird extension and had about 2 downloads a day
> on mozdev, 5 on AMO before going public and now 30...
>
> Most end users on AMO won't go looking for an update on your project
> website. They won't even realize there might be a newer version there, or in
> the sandbox.
>
>
> I would however like to advise you to open your favorite IRC proggy and go
>> beg for support (insert you devils smiley here).  Now seriously, this has
>> got to change a.s.a.p.  I agree. And totally!
>
>
> Project owners could have helped to take the strain from editors too, by
> not waiting for the next major release to update their add-on, but starting
> with it as soon as the first alpha was released (or even before that). Once
> an extension is compatible (and reviewed), you only need to bump maxVersion
> if it stays compatible and no further reviewing is necessary for that. Some
> project owners probably have done that, but others have waited too long and
> now suffer the consequences of that.
>
> If you don't like the way AMO/reviewing is working, it might be an idea to
> file a bug for it. Or vote for one, if you can find an existing one. But
> (all/most?) reviewers are volunteers, just like you and me, and they do
> their best to review each add-on.
>
> Onno
>
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080708/39c06b46/attachment.html>

From johnrw at gmail.com  Tue Jul  8 00:15:26 2008
From: johnrw at gmail.com (John Woods)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 03:15:26 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] Awaiting extension upgrade approval
In-Reply-To: <g4ujf5$dgc$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <378202.32277.qm@web30506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<mailman.112.1215460552.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g4u69q$28je$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<mailman.120.1215472257.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g4ujf5$dgc$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <f7910e810807080015w662d9c13u26051484a33d5a74@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Michael Vincent van Rantwijk,
MultiZilla <mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com> wrote:
> John Woods wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 6:45 PM, Michael Vincent van Rantwijk,
>> MultiZilla <mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip />
>
>>>> World Record downloads in a day, and none of those
>>>> downloads can use my extension. It's disjointed.
>>>> But those who control the ui of the browser, seem
>>>> to keep saying to make something 'an extension.'
>>>
>>> I wonder why people keep coming up with issues about MoSomthing because
>>> you
>>> don't need it. Really!
>>
>> You kinda lost me here... what is not needed? Amo?
>
> AMO isn't an absolute necessity to release new versions of your software.
> Surely you must know that by now, especially since you post here ;)
>
>>> <snip />
>>>
>>>> Wasn't mozilla going to hire some full time reviewers?
>>>
>>> That was the story some time ago yes, but maybe it wasn't true or they
>>> rather wait for some fresh new interns to arrive ;)
>>>
>>> Michael
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Project_owners mailing list
>>> Project_owners at mozdev.org
>>> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>>
>>
>> Well here are the last 3 comments on the extension... at amo's site.
>> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/33
>>
>> #
>>
>>    This is by far the best add-on I use. My FF3 is hurting without this.
>>
>> by Peter Ceballo on July 7, 2008
>> #
>>
>>    Googlebar is a must have for me so unless there is a compatible
>> version of Firefox then the latter does not get upgraded.
>>
>> by Martin Platt on July 6, 2008
>> #
>>
>>    Big Fan!
>>
>>    Too many days without it. I registered only to let you John that
>> I'm really grateful for your work. I love it and thank you for
>> updating it. :)
>
> I'm not one to comment on whether add-on X is any good or not, simply
> because that is, in my view, entirely up to the end-users and supports of
> it.
>
> I would however like to advise you to open your favorite IRC proggy and go
> beg for support (insert you devils smiley here).  Now seriously, this has
> got to change a.s.a.p.  I agree. And totally!
>
> Michael
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>

Did the irc thing already, but I don't grovel very well.
I see no reason to learn because amo has stuck an extension
in http://purgatory.addons.mozilla.org.

It really does suck. MY browser already has what I want...
but this overarching control of extensions has got to stop.

If mozilla and it's brainchild... amo want users think that because
it's hosted on amo,
it's safe and qc tested... then they had damn well better hire some
people to carry that load... especially since Firefox seems
to want to make an extension out of all the good things
mozilla was good for..

Look... I am completely dissatisfied with the way things are.
Amo is not for release early, release often... kind of stuff.
It is not "their" reputation that is in question, but when it all
comes down to it... it is between the user and the author.

I know, I made some real goofball errors in the past... and
most of the users were really nice about it!

I sometimes wish mozdev.org would compete head on with that place.
It's becoming quite a cathedral over there.

Here... since I could not get to sleep tonight... I came
downstairs and looked over what kind of begging people have to
do on amo... here is what was there...(irc://moznet/addons

[22:27]	<kanjilish>	help!
[22:27]	<firebot>	kanjilish: Welcome to #addons! Just ask your
question and someone should be with you shortly. You can read more
about the new sandbox and AMO's add-on policies at
http://addons.mozilla.org/pages/policy
[22:27]	<kanjilish>	Can I please humbly make an editor review request?
[22:28]	* TestPilot	always wondered why topic say "Say "help!" to
attract our attention" - there any reason for that?
[22:28]	-->|	Brett (chatzilla at 610DDD00.7D204BF8.A5D8B2.IP) has joined #addons
[22:30]	<kanjilish>	TestPilot: a test of instruction following, perhaps?
[22:30]	<TestPilot>	must be
[22:31]	<TestPilot>	yeah, a link to new sandbox and policies
[22:31]	<Brett>	Hi...Any way to dynamically set a width on a tree?
[22:32]	<TestPilot>	Brett: #extdev #js
[22:32]	<Brett>	ok...thx
[22:32]	<--|	Brett has left #addons
[22:34]	|<--	anotherjesse has left moznet (Ping timeout)
[22:42]	<kanjilish>	well, I won't bug too much,
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/7208 is ready for a
review, been in the Sandbox for 2 months, public nom for about 1 mo, a
good number of reviews for a Japanese language add-on. in Japanese we
see "yoroshiku onegai shimasu" which means something like "i beg this
favor of you, humbly".
[22:43]	<kanjilish>	humbly."


sheesh. Is that enough begging or what?
If mozdev had download tracking... and made it easier to sign my xpi's...
I would stop using amo altogether.

john woods
skype:john.r.woods

From silfreed at silfreed.net  Tue Jul  8 04:19:04 2008
From: silfreed at silfreed.net (Douglas E. Warner)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 07:19:04 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] Announcing Mercurial at Mozdev
In-Reply-To: <g4ukn0$hku$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <mailman.113.1215460633.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g4ukn0$hku$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <200807080719.10487.silfreed@silfreed.net>

On Monday 07 July 2008 22:54:15 Philip Chee wrote:
> > Documentation can be found here:
> > http://www.mozdev.org/drupal/wiki/MozdevMercurial
>
> s/hg.vebzom.org/hg.mozdev.org/


Thanks for spotting that!


BTW, you should be able to login to the Mozdev wiki and make changes 
(anonymous editing is currently disabled, but we could look into that in the 
future if it's too big of a stumbling block).


-Doug


-- 
Douglas E. Warner    <silfreed at silfreed.net>    Site Developer
Mozdev.org           http://www.mozdev.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080708/7ff9ca33/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080708/7ff9ca33/attachment-0001.bin>

From brian at mozdev.org  Tue Jul  8 04:30:08 2008
From: brian at mozdev.org (Brian King)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 13:30:08 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] Initialising an extension once per session
Message-ID: <48734FC0.4010208@mozdev.org>

Hi,

I initialise my Firefox extensions the standard way as outlined here 
(using addEventListener):

http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Code_snippets:On_page_load#Running_code_on_an_extension.27s_first_run_or_after_an_extension.27s_update

However, this is fired for every new browser window. Is there a way to 
make it happen only once per browser session?

Notes:

-> this is not about first run, but rather run per session
-> removing the event listener as in the example does not do it
-> i'd like to avoid using prefs if possible

- Brian

From frisco82 at gmail.com  Tue Jul  8 04:40:49 2008
From: frisco82 at gmail.com (Ramiro Aparicio)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 08:40:49 -0300
Subject: [Project_owners] Initialising an extension once per session
In-Reply-To: <48734FC0.4010208@mozdev.org>
References: <48734FC0.4010208@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <607c3f4d0807080440y229cc172y607b0fab922d6c2f@mail.gmail.com>

New browsers = new extension instances, so they do not share anything if you
did not used common compoments, so new initializations should not be a
problem.

Hasta Otra

Ramiro Aparicio

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Desarrollador de FoxGame http://foxgame.mozdev.org
Blogero aficionado en http://www.habitaquo.net

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:30 AM, Brian King <brian at mozdev.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I initialise my Firefox extensions the standard way as outlined here (using
> addEventListener):
>
>
> http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Code_snippets:On_page_load#Running_code_on_an_extension.27s_first_run_or_after_an_extension.27s_update
>
> However, this is fired for every new browser window. Is there a way to make
> it happen only once per browser session?
>
> Notes:
>
> -> this is not about first run, but rather run per session
> -> removing the event listener as in the example does not do it
> -> i'd like to avoid using prefs if possible
>
> - Brian
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080708/9169237b/attachment.html>

From godmar at gmail.com  Tue Jul  8 05:15:57 2008
From: godmar at gmail.com (Godmar Back)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 08:15:57 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] Initialising an extension once per session
In-Reply-To: <48734FC0.4010208@mozdev.org>
References: <48734FC0.4010208@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <719dced30807080515v7ed252d6p2f8307579c47dcc8@mail.gmail.com>

Yes - implement your code as a XPCOM Component:
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/How_to_Build_an_XPCOM_Component_in_Javascript

 - Godmar

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 7:30 AM, Brian King <brian at mozdev.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I initialise my Firefox extensions the standard way as outlined here (using
> addEventListener):
>
> http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Code_snippets:On_page_load#Running_code_on_an_extension.27s_first_run_or_after_an_extension.27s_update
>
> However, this is fired for every new browser window. Is there a way to make
> it happen only once per browser session?
>
> Notes:
>
> -> this is not about first run, but rather run per session
> -> removing the event listener as in the example does not do it
> -> i'd like to avoid using prefs if possible
>
> - Brian
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>

From massey at stlouis-shopper.com  Tue Jul  8 05:58:04 2008
From: massey at stlouis-shopper.com (massey)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 07:58:04 -0500
Subject: [Project_owners] Initialising an extension once per session
In-Reply-To: <719dced30807080515v7ed252d6p2f8307579c47dcc8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <48734FC0.4010208@mozdev.org>
	<719dced30807080515v7ed252d6p2f8307579c47dcc8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4873645C.5020506@stlouis-shopper.com>

Couldn't you just check to see if another browser window is open with 
nsIWindowMediator in the initialization routine and exit if another 
window is already open?

Jim

Godmar Back wrote:

>Yes - implement your code as a XPCOM Component:
>http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/How_to_Build_an_XPCOM_Component_in_Javascript
>
> - Godmar
>
>On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 7:30 AM, Brian King <brian at mozdev.org> wrote:
>  
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I initialise my Firefox extensions the standard way as outlined here (using
>>addEventListener):
>>
>>http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Code_snippets:On_page_load#Running_code_on_an_extension.27s_first_run_or_after_an_extension.27s_update
>>
>>However, this is fired for every new browser window. Is there a way to make
>>it happen only once per browser session?
>>
>>Notes:
>>
>>-> this is not about first run, but rather run per session
>>-> removing the event listener as in the example does not do it
>>-> i'd like to avoid using prefs if possible
>>
>>- Brian
>>_______________________________________________
>>Project_owners mailing list
>>Project_owners at mozdev.org
>>https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>
>>    
>>
>_______________________________________________
>Project_owners mailing list
>Project_owners at mozdev.org
>https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
>  
>

From brian at mozdev.org  Tue Jul  8 06:18:16 2008
From: brian at mozdev.org (Brian King)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:18:16 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] Initialising an extension once per session
In-Reply-To: <607c3f4d0807080440y229cc172y607b0fab922d6c2f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <48734FC0.4010208@mozdev.org>
	<607c3f4d0807080440y229cc172y607b0fab922d6c2f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <48736918.9030302@mozdev.org>

Ramiro Aparicio wrote:
> New browsers = new extension instances, so they do not share anything if 
> you did not used common compoments, so new initializations should not be 
> a problem.

Well, it depends what you are doing during initialisation. In my case, I 
am making server requests that don't need to be repeated.

- Brian

From brian at mozdev.org  Tue Jul  8 06:20:04 2008
From: brian at mozdev.org (Brian King)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:20:04 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] Initialising an extension once per session
In-Reply-To: <4873645C.5020506@stlouis-shopper.com>
References: <48734FC0.4010208@mozdev.org>	<719dced30807080515v7ed252d6p2f8307579c47dcc8@mail.gmail.com>
	<4873645C.5020506@stlouis-shopper.com>
Message-ID: <48736984.5080709@mozdev.org>

massey wrote:
> Couldn't you just check to see if another browser window is open with 
> nsIWindowMediator in the initialization routine and exit if another 
> window is already open?

Sure, but it sounds like a hack. An ad window, for instance, could popup 
before then and prevent the initial run.

- Brian

From steve at visitsteve.com  Tue Jul  8 06:38:19 2008
From: steve at visitsteve.com (Steve Lambert)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 09:38:19 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] Awaiting extension upgrade approval
In-Reply-To: <607c3f4d0807072331u7f8fcd19of171600ad51055c7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <378202.32277.qm@web30506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<mailman.112.1215460552.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g4u69q$28je$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<mailman.120.1215472257.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g4ujf5$dgc$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<767de81b0807072313n584fa02ch5829f5431c90b2da@mail.gmail.com>
	<607c3f4d0807072331u7f8fcd19of171600ad51055c7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <96E7B40A-CF83-4864-B5EA-5A150FECF003@visitsteve.com>

I'll just chime in quickly here because I can't help it.  I am  
normally not a complainer, I swear...

I've had an add-on nominated for over 2 months.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/developers/details/6846

Before FF3 (which we are still working on making it compatible with)  
we had 1,200 active users.  The plugin has been written about in the  
NY Times.  I could go on...

I'm currently maintaining two releases - one on our own servers  
signed with the mccoy tool which is time consuming, and this AMO  
version.

I only learned about mozdev recently and hoping it will make our  
process easier.

We've got about 5-10 really smart people working on development and  
barriers created by lack of documentation are amazing.  We should be  
able to figure this stuff out, but when you get to a certain level,  
it feels like it's all insider knowledge that you have to tease out  
of people on irc.

I'll stop there... thanks for letting me vent a little.

Steve

--
Steve Lambert
http://visitsteve.com
Eyebeam Senior Fellow
http://eyebeam.org




On Jul 8, 2008, at 2:31 AM, Ramiro Aparicio wrote:

> I think AMO is important and with the increased interaction on  
> firefox 3 it is more important than ever, the idea es to have a  
> repository with all extension, themes... which is great but if  
> every extension update has to wait for 3-4 weeks to be reviewed  
> then thats your bottleneck, and it should be done something to  
> address that problem, also the bag instead FIFO system really  
> sucks, at least try to promote the older unreviewed extensions or  
> whatever.
>
> In my case a extension with more than 120.000 users (AMO stats)  
> have been waiting in the bag for 3 weeks, the last weekend I  
> released an update to fix a bunch of bugs and we will see when it  
> will be reviewed.
>
> And Onno, releasing in advance of FF release would be a great idea  
> if they stop making last minute changes, I had to change a lot of  
> code between RC1 and RC2 becouse of the new security restrictions  
> that were added and 3 days before download day I was filling a bug  
> due to a regression in RC3.
>
> I don't know whats the best system probably you don't have to pay  
> for reviewers, but make a good campaign to get more, give them  
> points for reviews and let them get some free merchandising with  
> the points, and probably you will reduce the problem a lot.
>
> Hasta Otra
>
> Ramiro Aparicio
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> -----------
> Desarrollador de FoxGame http://foxgame.mozdev.org
> Blogero aficionado en http://www.habitaquo.net
>
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 3:13 AM, Onno Ekker <o.e.ekker at gmail.com>  
> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 4:29 AM, Michael Vincent van Rantwijk,  
> MultiZilla <mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com> wrote:
> AMO isn't an absolute necessity to release new versions of your  
> software. Surely you must know that by now, especially since you  
> post here ;)
>
> You don't need AMO, but it helps greatly getting your extention to  
> end users. I have a small Thunderbird extension and had about 2  
> downloads a day on mozdev, 5 on AMO before going public and now 30...
>
> Most end users on AMO won't go looking for an update on your  
> project website. They won't even realize there might be a newer  
> version there, or in the sandbox.
>
>
> I would however like to advise you to open your favorite IRC proggy  
> and go beg for support (insert you devils smiley here).  Now  
> seriously, this has got to change a.s.a.p.  I agree. And totally!
>
> Project owners could have helped to take the strain from editors  
> too, by not waiting for the next major release to update their add- 
> on, but starting with it as soon as the first alpha was released  
> (or even before that). Once an extension is compatible (and  
> reviewed), you only need to bump maxVersion if it stays compatible  
> and no further reviewing is necessary for that. Some project owners  
> probably have done that, but others have waited too long and now  
> suffer the consequences of that.
>
> If you don't like the way AMO/reviewing is working, it might be an  
> idea to file a bug for it. Or vote for one, if you can find an  
> existing one. But (all/most?) reviewers are volunteers, just like  
> you and me, and they do their best to review each add-on.
>
> Onno
>
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080708/36484dd3/attachment-0001.html>

From avarma at mozilla.com  Tue Jul  8 06:42:37 2008
From: avarma at mozilla.com (Atul Varma)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 06:42:37 -0700
Subject: [Project_owners] Initialising an extension once per session
In-Reply-To: <719dced30807080515v7ed252d6p2f8307579c47dcc8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <48734FC0.4010208@mozdev.org>
	<719dced30807080515v7ed252d6p2f8307579c47dcc8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <40BD76EF-35E8-4302-83AA-EB2622B47E0A@mozilla.com>

The easier way to do this is via a JS module, though it's only  
supported by Firefox 3:

   http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Using_JavaScript_code_modules

You can see these in use in Mozilla Weave, which uses them  
extensively.  If your extension needs to be compatible with FF2,  
though, then an XPCOM component is the way to go.

- Atul

On Jul 8, 2008, at 5:15 AM, Godmar Back wrote:

> Yes - implement your code as a XPCOM Component:
> http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/How_to_Build_an_XPCOM_Component_in_Javascript
>
> - Godmar
>
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 7:30 AM, Brian King <brian at mozdev.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I initialise my Firefox extensions the standard way as outlined  
>> here (using
>> addEventListener):
>>
>> http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Code_snippets:On_page_load#Running_code_on_an_extension.27s_first_run_or_after_an_extension.27s_update
>>
>> However, this is fired for every new browser window. Is there a way  
>> to make
>> it happen only once per browser session?
>>
>> Notes:
>>
>> -> this is not about first run, but rather run per session
>> -> removing the event listener as in the example does not do it
>> -> i'd like to avoid using prefs if possible
>>
>> - Brian
>> _______________________________________________
>> Project_owners mailing list
>> Project_owners at mozdev.org
>> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners


From godmar at gmail.com  Tue Jul  8 06:50:28 2008
From: godmar at gmail.com (Godmar Back)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 09:50:28 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] Awaiting extension upgrade approval
In-Reply-To: <96E7B40A-CF83-4864-B5EA-5A150FECF003@visitsteve.com>
References: <378202.32277.qm@web30506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<mailman.112.1215460552.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g4u69q$28je$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<mailman.120.1215472257.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g4ujf5$dgc$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<767de81b0807072313n584fa02ch5829f5431c90b2da@mail.gmail.com>
	<607c3f4d0807072331u7f8fcd19of171600ad51055c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<96E7B40A-CF83-4864-B5EA-5A150FECF003@visitsteve.com>
Message-ID: <719dced30807080650x6d367562ib6a0050ff984e45f@mail.gmail.com>

I agree with your general sentiment; I note that FF3 has lost a lot of
functionality (which is now hidden in add-ons requiring registrations
with the Mozilla foundation, such as the URL to which you link, which
I cannot access.)

To reply to your single point about McCoy ----- there's also Spock,
which can easily automate the creation of FF3-compliant extensions.
That's what we're doing in LibX (libx.org/editionbuilder), the code is
available at libx.mozdev.org
Spock is available here: http://hyperstruct.net/projects/spock
It can be easily invoked from other scripts (bash, Perl, PhP).

 - Godmar

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Steve Lambert <steve at visitsteve.com> wrote:
> I'll just chime in quickly here because I can't help it.  I am normally not
> a complainer, I swear...
> I've had an add-on nominated for over 2 months.
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/developers/details/6846
> Before FF3 (which we are still working on making it compatible with) we had
> 1,200 active users.  The plugin has been written about in the NY Times.  I
> could go on...
> I'm currently maintaining two releases - one on our own servers signed with
> the mccoy tool which is time consuming, and this AMO version.
> I only learned about mozdev recently and hoping it will make our process
> easier.
> We've got about 5-10 really smart people working on development and barriers
> created by lack of documentation are amazing.  We should be able to figure
> this stuff out, but when you get to a certain level, it feels like it's all
> insider knowledge that you have to tease out of people on irc.
> I'll stop there... thanks for letting me vent a little.
>
> Steve
> --
> Steve Lambert
> http://visitsteve.com
> Eyebeam Senior Fellow
> http://eyebeam.org
>
>
>
> On Jul 8, 2008, at 2:31 AM, Ramiro Aparicio wrote:
>
> I think AMO is important and with the increased interaction on firefox 3 it
> is more important than ever, the idea es to have a repository with all
> extension, themes... which is great but if every extension update has to
> wait for 3-4 weeks to be reviewed then thats your bottleneck, and it should
> be done something to address that problem, also the bag instead FIFO system
> really sucks, at least try to promote the older unreviewed extensions or
> whatever.
>
> In my case a extension with more than 120.000 users (AMO stats) have been
> waiting in the bag for 3 weeks, the last weekend I released an update to fix
> a bunch of bugs and we will see when it will be reviewed.
>
> And Onno, releasing in advance of FF release would be a great idea if they
> stop making last minute changes, I had to change a lot of code between RC1
> and RC2 becouse of the new security restrictions that were added and 3 days
> before download day I was filling a bug due to a regression in RC3.
>
> I don't know whats the best system probably you don't have to pay for
> reviewers, but make a good campaign to get more, give them points for
> reviews and let them get some free merchandising with the points, and
> probably you will reduce the problem a lot.
>
> Hasta Otra
>
> Ramiro Aparicio
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Desarrollador de FoxGame http://foxgame.mozdev.org
> Blogero aficionado en http://www.habitaquo.net
>
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 3:13 AM, Onno Ekker <o.e.ekker at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 4:29 AM, Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla
>> <mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> AMO isn't an absolute necessity to release new versions of your software.
>>> Surely you must know that by now, especially since you post here ;)
>>
>> You don't need AMO, but it helps greatly getting your extention to end
>> users. I have a small Thunderbird extension and had about 2 downloads a day
>> on mozdev, 5 on AMO before going public and now 30...
>>
>> Most end users on AMO won't go looking for an update on your project
>> website. They won't even realize there might be a newer version there, or in
>> the sandbox.
>>
>>
>>> I would however like to advise you to open your favorite IRC proggy and
>>> go beg for support (insert you devils smiley here).  Now seriously, this has
>>> got to change a.s.a.p.  I agree. And totally!
>>
>> Project owners could have helped to take the strain from editors too, by
>> not waiting for the next major release to update their add-on, but starting
>> with it as soon as the first alpha was released (or even before that). Once
>> an extension is compatible (and reviewed), you only need to bump maxVersion
>> if it stays compatible and no further reviewing is necessary for that. Some
>> project owners probably have done that, but others have waited too long and
>> now suffer the consequences of that.
>>
>> If you don't like the way AMO/reviewing is working, it might be an idea to
>> file a bug for it. Or vote for one, if you can find an existing one. But
>> (all/most?) reviewers are volunteers, just like you and me, and they do
>> their best to review each add-on.
>>
>> Onno
>> _______________________________________________
>> Project_owners mailing list
>> Project_owners at mozdev.org
>> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
>

From mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com  Tue Jul  8 07:17:45 2008
From: mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com (Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:17:45 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] Announcing Mercurial at Mozdev
In-Reply-To: <mailman.131.1215515963.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
References: <mailman.113.1215460633.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>	<g4ukn0$hku$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<mailman.131.1215515963.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g4vsu8$1okv$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

Douglas E. Warner wrote:
> On Monday 07 July 2008 22:54:15 Philip Chee wrote:
>>> Documentation can be found here:
>>> http://www.mozdev.org/drupal/wiki/MozdevMercurial
>> s/hg.vebzom.org/hg.mozdev.org/
> 
> 
> Thanks for spotting that!
> 
> 
> BTW, you should be able to login to the Mozdev wiki and make changes 
> (anonymous editing is currently disabled, but we could look into that in the 
> future if it's too big of a stumbling block).
> 
> 
> -Doug

Which password should that? I mean; I also noticed the error but failed 
to login!

Michael

From mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com  Tue Jul  8 07:30:42 2008
From: mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com (Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:30:42 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] Awaiting extension upgrade approval
In-Reply-To: <mailman.124.1215497605.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
References: <378202.32277.qm@web30506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<mailman.112.1215460552.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>	<g4u69q$28je$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>	<mailman.120.1215472257.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>	<g4ujf5$dgc$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<mailman.124.1215497605.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g4vtmi$1r9l$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

Onno Ekker wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 4:29 AM, Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla <
> mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> AMO isn't an absolute necessity to release new versions of your software.
>> Surely you must know that by now, especially since you post here ;)
>>
> 
> You don't need AMO, but it helps greatly getting your extention to end
> users. I have a small Thunderbird extension and had about 2 downloads a day
> on mozdev, 5 on AMO before going public and now 30...

Seems like there is work to be done for mozdev.org and the project 
owners using its services.  MoCo can't keep ignoring mozdev.org because 
let's face it, this is where all add-on fun started.

> Most end users on AMO won't go looking for an update on your project
> website. They won't even realize there might be a newer version there, or in
> the sandbox.

Correct, so *you* should be able to use any update url and not be bound 
to AMO.

> I would however like to advise you to open your favorite IRC proggy and go
>> beg for support (insert you devils smiley here).  Now seriously, this has
>> got to change a.s.a.p.  I agree. And totally!
> 
> 
> Project owners could have helped to take the strain from editors too, by not
> waiting for the next major release to update their add-on, but starting with
> it as soon as the first alpha was released (or even before that). Once an
> extension is compatible (and reviewed), you only need to bump maxVersion if
> it stays compatible and no further reviewing is necessary for that. Some
> project owners probably have done that, but others have waited too long and
> now suffer the consequences of that.

Please take a look at the ever rising number of security bugs in Mozilla 
Firefox code, not to mention other failures so *if* there are security 
issues in extensions, then that is the fault of MoCo for not sharing 
info, or at least way to late!

> If you don't like the way AMO/reviewing is working, it might be an idea to
> file a bug for it. Or vote for one, if you can find an existing one. 

Votes won't work. At least it never did before.

> But
> (all/most?) reviewers are volunteers, just like you and me, and they do
> their best to review each add-on.
> 
> Onno

You don't have to defend reviewers.  Not for me anyway.  We all know how 
it works, but we all know that what MoCo is doing currently, isn't 
working. Not a bit.

From mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com  Tue Jul  8 07:39:35 2008
From: mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com (Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:39:35 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] Awaiting extension upgrade approval
In-Reply-To: <mailman.139.1215524316.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
References: <378202.32277.qm@web30506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<mailman.112.1215460552.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>	<g4u69q$28je$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>	<mailman.120.1215472257.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>	<g4ujf5$dgc$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>	<767de81b0807072313n584fa02ch5829f5431c90b2da@mail.gmail.com>	<607c3f4d0807072331u7f8fcd19of171600ad51055c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<mailman.139.1215524316.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g4vu78$1s6k$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

Steve Lambert wrote:
> I'll just chime in quickly here because I can't help it.  I am normally 
> not a complainer, I swear...

<snip />

> I'm currently maintaining two releases - one on our own servers signed 
> with the mccoy tool which is time consuming, and this AMO version.

I haven't been using McCoy in a while. Not for months now.  You sound 
however unhappy, have issues with it.  This might be feedback which 
should be addressed to the developer of it, or the documentation at 
mozdev.org

Maybe there *is* something that should/could change, but I don't know. 
Let's start by letting the developer know why and what doesn't work for 
you. Agreed?

> I only learned about mozdev recently and hoping it will make our process 
> easier.

Please share that with me.  How exactly did you learn about the 
existence of mozdev.org?

Can someone please refresh my memory and tell me how difficult it is to 
get your extension working these days?

Michael

From silfreed at silfreed.net  Tue Jul  8 07:45:23 2008
From: silfreed at silfreed.net (Douglas E. Warner)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 10:45:23 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] Announcing Mercurial at Mozdev
In-Reply-To: <g4vsu8$1okv$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <mailman.113.1215460633.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<mailman.131.1215515963.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g4vsu8$1okv$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <200807081045.24192.silfreed@silfreed.net>

On Tuesday 08 July 2008 10:17:45 Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla 
wrote:
> Which password should that? I mean; I also noticed the error but failed
> to login!

Should be your CVS username and password.

-Doug

-- 
Douglas E. Warner    <silfreed at silfreed.net>    Site Developer
Mozdev.org           http://www.mozdev.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080708/812a94df/attachment.bin>

From johnrw at gmail.com  Tue Jul  8 07:53:49 2008
From: johnrw at gmail.com (John Woods)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 10:53:49 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] Awaiting extension upgrade approval
In-Reply-To: <96E7B40A-CF83-4864-B5EA-5A150FECF003@visitsteve.com>
References: <378202.32277.qm@web30506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<mailman.112.1215460552.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g4u69q$28je$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<mailman.120.1215472257.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g4ujf5$dgc$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<767de81b0807072313n584fa02ch5829f5431c90b2da@mail.gmail.com>
	<607c3f4d0807072331u7f8fcd19of171600ad51055c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<96E7B40A-CF83-4864-B5EA-5A150FECF003@visitsteve.com>
Message-ID: <f7910e810807080753n53c2d6d9o136572e35bf64430@mail.gmail.com>

Steve,

Something I gleaned from irc://moznet/addons might interest you.
http://people.mozilla.com/~polvi/threedom/3.0-in-queue.csv

I have no idea how accurate that is. Someone plopped it in on the channel.

But, 6846 does not seem to be listed.

I swear there should be a timeout function on amo... where if an extension's
new version is not reviewed in a certain time... it goes public. 2 months
is not acceptable. 2 weeks even.

Totally new extensions, without any prior author history... is about the only
legitimate "security" concern... but even a new extension by an author who does
have a reputation of sorts... is not a case where his/her extension's
"compatibility"
release needs to have the source code scanned for Blue Meanies.

These guys are losing it.

John Woods
skype: john.r.woods



On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Steve Lambert <steve at visitsteve.com> wrote:
> I'll just chime in quickly here because I can't help it.  I am normally not
> a complainer, I swear...
> I've had an add-on nominated for over 2 months.
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/developers/details/6846
> Before FF3 (which we are still working on making it compatible with) we had
> 1,200 active users.  The plugin has been written about in the NY Times.  I
> could go on...
> I'm currently maintaining two releases - one on our own servers signed with
> the mccoy tool which is time consuming, and this AMO version.
> I only learned about mozdev recently and hoping it will make our process
> easier.
> We've got about 5-10 really smart people working on development and barriers
> created by lack of documentation are amazing.  We should be able to figure
> this stuff out, but when you get to a certain level, it feels like it's all
> insider knowledge that you have to tease out of people on irc.
> I'll stop there... thanks for letting me vent a little.
>
> Steve
> --
> Steve Lambert
> http://visitsteve.com
> Eyebeam Senior Fellow
> http://eyebeam.org
>
>
>
> On Jul 8, 2008, at 2:31 AM, Ramiro Aparicio wrote:
>
> I think AMO is important and with the increased interaction on firefox 3 it
> is more important than ever, the idea es to have a repository with all
> extension, themes... which is great but if every extension update has to
> wait for 3-4 weeks to be reviewed then thats your bottleneck, and it should
> be done something to address that problem, also the bag instead FIFO system
> really sucks, at least try to promote the older unreviewed extensions or
> whatever.
>
> In my case a extension with more than 120.000 users (AMO stats) have been
> waiting in the bag for 3 weeks, the last weekend I released an update to fix
> a bunch of bugs and we will see when it will be reviewed.
>
> And Onno, releasing in advance of FF release would be a great idea if they
> stop making last minute changes, I had to change a lot of code between RC1
> and RC2 becouse of the new security restrictions that were added and 3 days
> before download day I was filling a bug due to a regression in RC3.
>
> I don't know whats the best system probably you don't have to pay for
> reviewers, but make a good campaign to get more, give them points for
> reviews and let them get some free merchandising with the points, and
> probably you will reduce the problem a lot.
>
> Hasta Otra
>
> Ramiro Aparicio
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Desarrollador de FoxGame http://foxgame.mozdev.org
> Blogero aficionado en http://www.habitaquo.net
>
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 3:13 AM, Onno Ekker <o.e.ekker at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 4:29 AM, Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla
>> <mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> AMO isn't an absolute necessity to release new versions of your software.
>>> Surely you must know that by now, especially since you post here ;)
>>
>> You don't need AMO, but it helps greatly getting your extention to end
>> users. I have a small Thunderbird extension and had about 2 downloads a day
>> on mozdev, 5 on AMO before going public and now 30...
>>
>> Most end users on AMO won't go looking for an update on your project
>> website. They won't even realize there might be a newer version there, or in
>> the sandbox.
>>
>>
>>> I would however like to advise you to open your favorite IRC proggy and
>>> go beg for support (insert you devils smiley here).  Now seriously, this has
>>> got to change a.s.a.p.  I agree. And totally!
>>
>> Project owners could have helped to take the strain from editors too, by
>> not waiting for the next major release to update their add-on, but starting
>> with it as soon as the first alpha was released (or even before that). Once
>> an extension is compatible (and reviewed), you only need to bump maxVersion
>> if it stays compatible and no further reviewing is necessary for that. Some
>> project owners probably have done that, but others have waited too long and
>> now suffer the consequences of that.
>>
>> If you don't like the way AMO/reviewing is working, it might be an idea to
>> file a bug for it. Or vote for one, if you can find an existing one. But
>> (all/most?) reviewers are volunteers, just like you and me, and they do
>> their best to review each add-on.
>>
>> Onno
>> _______________________________________________
>> Project_owners mailing list
>> Project_owners at mozdev.org
>> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
>

From mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com  Tue Jul  8 08:04:42 2008
From: mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com (Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:04:42 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] Announcing Mercurial at Mozdev (THIS ONE
	MICHAEL)
In-Reply-To: <mailman.143.1215528342.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
References: <mailman.113.1215460633.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>	<mailman.131.1215515963.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>	<g4vsu8$1okv$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<mailman.143.1215528342.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g4vvm9$24gb$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

Douglas E. Warner wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 July 2008 10:17:45 Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla 
> wrote:
>> Which password should that? I mean; I also noticed the error but failed
>> to login!
> 
> Should be your CVS username and password.
> 
> -Doug

Darm I should have tired that.  I just thought that I needed a Drupal 
specific account.

Thanks,
Michael

From johnrw at gmail.com  Tue Jul  8 08:09:46 2008
From: johnrw at gmail.com (John Woods)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 11:09:46 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] Awaiting extension upgrade approval
In-Reply-To: <g4vu78$1s6k$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <378202.32277.qm@web30506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<mailman.112.1215460552.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g4u69q$28je$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<mailman.120.1215472257.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g4ujf5$dgc$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<767de81b0807072313n584fa02ch5829f5431c90b2da@mail.gmail.com>
	<607c3f4d0807072331u7f8fcd19of171600ad51055c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<mailman.139.1215524316.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g4vu78$1s6k$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <f7910e810807080809y4ecc5d9bv553b29b31fc184f8@mail.gmail.com>

Michael,

It is funny you should ask, because the very first extension I ever
installed was multizilla.
Then, somewhere along the line, Googlebar broke my browser. After I
fixed it, I took it on
myself to try and make sure those kinds of breakages didn't happen anymore.
Wound up becoming project owner, when AndyEd landed a paying job at Microsoft.


On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Michael Vincent van Rantwijk,
MultiZilla <mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Steve Lambert wrote:
>>
>> I'll just chime in quickly here because I can't help it.  I am normally
>> not a complainer, I swear...
>
> <snip />
>
>> I'm currently maintaining two releases - one on our own servers signed
>> with the mccoy tool which is time consuming, and this AMO version.
>
> I haven't been using McCoy in a while. Not for months now.  You sound
> however unhappy, have issues with it.  This might be feedback which should
> be addressed to the developer of it, or the documentation at mozdev.org
>
> Maybe there *is* something that should/could change, but I don't know. Let's
> start by letting the developer know why and what doesn't work for you.
> Agreed?
>
>> I only learned about mozdev recently and hoping it will make our process
>> easier.
>
> Please share that with me.  How exactly did you learn about the existence of
> mozdev.org?
>
> Can someone please refresh my memory and tell me how difficult it is to get
> your extension working these days?
>
> Michael
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>

From mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com  Tue Jul  8 08:30:20 2008
From: mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com (Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:30:20 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] Awaiting extension upgrade approval
In-Reply-To: <mailman.146.1215529798.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
References: <378202.32277.qm@web30506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<mailman.112.1215460552.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>	<g4u69q$28je$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>	<mailman.120.1215472257.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>	<g4ujf5$dgc$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>	<767de81b0807072313n584fa02ch5829f5431c90b2da@mail.gmail.com>	<607c3f4d0807072331u7f8fcd19of171600ad51055c7@mail.gmail.com>	<mailman.139.1215524316.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>	<g4vu78$1s6k$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<mailman.146.1215529798.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g5016d$2cku$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

John Woods wrote:
> Michael,
> 
> It is funny you should ask, because the very first extension I ever
> installed was multizilla.

Oh, you're *that* John ;)

Seriously, I was trying to get to the bottom of the problem.  Eager to 
learn what the exact problem is, especially since I don't remember 
having these kind of problems and I was after all the one that asked the 
mozdev.org crew to fix this for me.

> Then, somewhere along the line, Googlebar broke my browser. After I
> fixed it, I took it on
> myself to try and make sure those kinds of breakages didn't happen anymore.
> Wound up becoming project owner, when AndyEd landed a paying job at Microsoft.

At Microsoft?  In Ireland perhaps (I got my offer a few weeks ago).

From johnrw at gmail.com  Tue Jul  8 09:35:05 2008
From: johnrw at gmail.com (John Woods)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 12:35:05 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] Awaiting extension upgrade approval
In-Reply-To: <g5016d$2cku$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <378202.32277.qm@web30506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<g4u69q$28je$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<mailman.120.1215472257.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g4ujf5$dgc$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<767de81b0807072313n584fa02ch5829f5431c90b2da@mail.gmail.com>
	<607c3f4d0807072331u7f8fcd19of171600ad51055c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<mailman.139.1215524316.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g4vu78$1s6k$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<mailman.146.1215529798.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g5016d$2cku$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <f7910e810807080935o6c2b650ft23381b21c2223feb@mail.gmail.com>

I think he went to Redmond... but he has not stayed...

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Michael Vincent van Rantwijk,
MultiZilla <mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com> wrote:
> John Woods wrote:
>>
>> Michael,
>>
>> It is funny you should ask, because the very first extension I ever
>> installed was multizilla.
>
> Oh, you're *that* John ;)
>
> Seriously, I was trying to get to the bottom of the problem.  Eager to learn
> what the exact problem is, especially since I don't remember having these
> kind of problems and I was after all the one that asked the mozdev.org crew
> to fix this for me.
>

Well, the problem is amo has 'toughened' up the review process... where only
certain extensions seem to be getting reviewed quickly while others do not.

I personally, think they(amo) should not have a license to prevent an
extension's distribution
indefinitely. Once a new version is submitted for the "review"... if
nobody reviews it...
it should be allowed to go public after a period of time. If they are
going to claim they
cannot review all submissions... and don't want to hire staff for the
job... then they would
be forced to review the ones that are going public "by expiration",
before that happened.

The only circumstance that might NOT qualify for that rule, would be a
totally new author
with no previous history. But once someone actually does Something,
and that something
is not a Blue Meanie... you have a certain reference to use when
asking the question...
who is this person?

Firfox without extensions is a joke.
As they pull more and more functionality Out of browser and leave it
on extensions to
make up the difference... that will become even more the case.

I am not using FF3, so any reduced functionality on that version will
not be noticed
by myself. I did notice Google's News page trying to make people feel
guilty for
not upgrading. Upgrade? For what? So I must lose Google's own BrowserSync?

http://www.google.com/tools/firefox/browsersync/

but then there's those who want to keep it alive... here and elsewhere...
http://www.downloadsquad.com/2008/06/25/google-browser-sync-im-not-dead-yet/

but I digress...

John

>> Then, somewhere along the line, Googlebar broke my browser. After I
>> fixed it, I took it on
>> myself to try and make sure those kinds of breakages didn't happen
>> anymore.
>> Wound up becoming project owner, when AndyEd landed a paying job at
>> Microsoft.
>
> At Microsoft?  In Ireland perhaps (I got my offer a few weeks ago).
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>

I would think they would have put him under a microscope to study. An
Open Source subject! Finally... we can analyze what makes one tick!
Kidding aside... his open source works did precede him.

I owe AndyEd alot. He would throw me bones... that turned out to be gems.
Knoppix was one. Back when no one really heard about it. I still use Knoppix as
my primary desktop. Since Ntfs reading and writting is mostly worked
out, in 5.1.1
I've been able to use it without having to boot Windows to do one
thing. The kicker,
was when I could connect to my wireless printer and print.

From godmar at gmail.com  Tue Jul  8 09:41:22 2008
From: godmar at gmail.com (Godmar Back)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 12:41:22 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO vs. mozdev was: Awaiting extension upgrade
	approval
Message-ID: <719dced30807080941s70aedce5xf671757a51d06f11@mail.gmail.com>

Related to the AMO approval thread:

Could somebody summarize what the advantages of hosting on AMO are as
compared to hosting at mozdev?

 - Godmar

From johnrw at gmail.com  Tue Jul  8 09:53:23 2008
From: johnrw at gmail.com (John Woods)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 12:53:23 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO vs. mozdev was: Awaiting extension upgrade
	approval
In-Reply-To: <719dced30807080941s70aedce5xf671757a51d06f11@mail.gmail.com>
References: <719dced30807080941s70aedce5xf671757a51d06f11@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f7910e810807080953rceab6c9ye7b7f91f021367c7@mail.gmail.com>

Real quick... off the top of my head...

"Get more Addons"... navigates there.

It has no scarry scarry messages about bad extensions... like mozdev gets...

ie it is whitelisted by default... mozdev is not.
It allows xpi installs without any signature hassles.
(Like nobody has ever installed VIA drivers before and
quickly waved off any warning about signed drivers...)

So they are pretty much coopting distribution by user experience.
What's hard to do elsewhere... is easy at amo.

When I think of Firefox's main claim to fame being "Tabbed Browsing", and THAT
having been developed at mozdev... by HJ(I wonder often how HJ is
doing?) I wanna
puke on the current mozilla crew. (A read of this bug... solves that notion
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=324227 roflmao)

John


On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Godmar Back <godmar at gmail.com> wrote:
> Related to the AMO approval thread:
>
> Could somebody summarize what the advantages of hosting on AMO are as
> compared to hosting at mozdev?
>
>  - Godmar
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>

From johnrw at gmail.com  Tue Jul  8 10:22:40 2008
From: johnrw at gmail.com (John Woods)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:22:40 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO vs. mozdev was: Awaiting extension upgrade
	approval
In-Reply-To: <f7910e810807080953rceab6c9ye7b7f91f021367c7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <719dced30807080941s70aedce5xf671757a51d06f11@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7910e810807080953rceab6c9ye7b7f91f021367c7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f7910e810807081022x7892263h7cb1fd611671ec81@mail.gmail.com>

I should also add that it seems that if something is not signed...
Firefox will disable any update checking. (Whaaaaaaaaat!)

I only caught that message once in my testing of a compatibility release...
so I am still not sure of what criteria needs to pass... but I think
it was upgrade
checking becoming disabled without a signed xpi.

Not an issue on downloads from amo.

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:53 PM, John Woods <johnrw at gmail.com> wrote:
> Real quick... off the top of my head...
>
> "Get more Addons"... navigates there.
>
> It has no scarry scarry messages about bad extensions... like mozdev gets...
>
> ie it is whitelisted by default... mozdev is not.
> It allows xpi installs without any signature hassles.
> (Like nobody has ever installed VIA drivers before and
> quickly waved off any warning about signed drivers...)
>
> So they are pretty much coopting distribution by user experience.
> What's hard to do elsewhere... is easy at amo.
>
> When I think of Firefox's main claim to fame being "Tabbed Browsing", and THAT
> having been developed at mozdev... by HJ(I wonder often how HJ is
> doing?) I wanna
> puke on the current mozilla crew. (A read of this bug... solves that notion
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=324227 roflmao)
>
> John
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Godmar Back <godmar at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Related to the AMO approval thread:
>>
>> Could somebody summarize what the advantages of hosting on AMO are as
>> compared to hosting at mozdev?
>>
>>  - Godmar
>> _______________________________________________
>> Project_owners mailing list
>> Project_owners at mozdev.org
>> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>
>

From silfreed at silfreed.net  Tue Jul  8 10:24:46 2008
From: silfreed at silfreed.net (Douglas E. Warner)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:24:46 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO vs. mozdev was: Awaiting extension upgrade
	approval
In-Reply-To: <f7910e810807080953rceab6c9ye7b7f91f021367c7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <719dced30807080941s70aedce5xf671757a51d06f11@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7910e810807080953rceab6c9ye7b7f91f021367c7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200807081324.47036.silfreed@silfreed.net>

On Tuesday 08 July 2008 12:53:23 John Woods wrote:
> It has no scarry scarry messages about bad extensions... like mozdev
> gets...
>
> ie it is whitelisted by default... mozdev is not.

About this; Mozdev *does* provide a mechanism for secure installs and updates 
now, but we still get the initial warning about installing an extension from 
an untrusted host.

Does anyone know if it would be possible to create an extension that would add 
mozdev.org as a trusted source in Firefox?  We could host this on AMO so 
extension developers on Mozdev would only need to require this extension 
before doing installs from Mozdev.org

If the warning about installing from Mozdev was removed the barrier for new 
users would be greatly reduced.

-Doug

-- 
Douglas E. Warner    <silfreed at silfreed.net>    Site Developer
Mozdev.org           http://www.mozdev.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080708/dd1e099d/attachment-0001.bin>

From godmar at gmail.com  Tue Jul  8 10:28:38 2008
From: godmar at gmail.com (Godmar Back)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:28:38 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO vs. mozdev was: Awaiting extension upgrade
	approval
In-Reply-To: <f7910e810807081022x7892263h7cb1fd611671ec81@mail.gmail.com>
References: <719dced30807080941s70aedce5xf671757a51d06f11@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7910e810807080953rceab6c9ye7b7f91f021367c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7910e810807081022x7892263h7cb1fd611671ec81@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <719dced30807081028t6a6223bck12c7c9853463dd0d@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:22 PM, John Woods <johnrw at gmail.com> wrote:
> I should also add that it seems that if something is not signed...
> Firefox will disable any update checking. (Whaaaaaaaaat!)
>
> I only caught that message once in my testing of a compatibility release...
> so I am still not sure of what criteria needs to pass... but I think
> it was upgrade
> checking becoming disabled without a signed xpi.
>

No, the xpi does not need to be signed.
FF3.0 only requires that update.rdf is either signed or that it's
provided via https://, as it would be when hosting on amo.

Check the archives of this mailing list for details.

 - Godmar

From godmar at gmail.com  Tue Jul  8 10:29:38 2008
From: godmar at gmail.com (Godmar Back)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:29:38 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO vs. mozdev was: Awaiting extension upgrade
	approval
In-Reply-To: <200807081324.47036.silfreed@silfreed.net>
References: <719dced30807080941s70aedce5xf671757a51d06f11@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7910e810807080953rceab6c9ye7b7f91f021367c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<200807081324.47036.silfreed@silfreed.net>
Message-ID: <719dced30807081029v69da482au47a721d1fe10e16a@mail.gmail.com>

That's a no-starter since such an extension would obviously not be
approved on AMO.

 - Godmar

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Douglas E. Warner <silfreed at silfreed.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 July 2008 12:53:23 John Woods wrote:
>> It has no scarry scarry messages about bad extensions... like mozdev
>> gets...
>>
>> ie it is whitelisted by default... mozdev is not.
>
> About this; Mozdev *does* provide a mechanism for secure installs and updates
> now, but we still get the initial warning about installing an extension from
> an untrusted host.
>
> Does anyone know if it would be possible to create an extension that would add
> mozdev.org as a trusted source in Firefox?  We could host this on AMO so
> extension developers on Mozdev would only need to require this extension
> before doing installs from Mozdev.org
>
> If the warning about installing from Mozdev was removed the barrier for new
> users would be greatly reduced.
>
> -Doug
>
> --
> Douglas E. Warner    <silfreed at silfreed.net>    Site Developer
> Mozdev.org           http://www.mozdev.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
>

From davidwboswell at yahoo.com  Tue Jul  8 10:34:57 2008
From: davidwboswell at yahoo.com (David Boswell)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 10:34:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO vs. mozdev was: Awaiting extension upgrade
	approval
In-Reply-To: <719dced30807080941s70aedce5xf671757a51d06f11@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <36530.31143.qm@web33007.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

> Could somebody summarize what the advantages of hosting on
> AMO are as compared to hosting at mozdev?

I think AMO and mozdev have two very different audiences.  AMO is intended to be a site where end users download add-ons and mozdev is a place where developers create add-ons (plus create other things such as applications, community portals...).  You can see this in what the sites offer.  For instance, AMO doesn't provide bugzilla, CVS/HG or other developer tools, but it does offer a number of tools for developers to promote their projects.

I think the best solution to the current frustration people are talking about is to figure out how to get the two sites to work together.  For instance, we could have a way for mozdev project owners to easily add and update their projects on AMO.  This sort of integration has been talked about for a long time, but it's a matter of making it happen.

It would be great for project owners to write down how they'd like to see mozdev and AMO integrate to make their lives easier and then we can work with the AMO team to try to make this happen.

David

From johnrw at gmail.com  Tue Jul  8 10:29:24 2008
From: johnrw at gmail.com (John Woods)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:29:24 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO vs. mozdev was: Awaiting extension upgrade
	approval
In-Reply-To: <200807081324.47036.silfreed@silfreed.net>
References: <719dced30807080941s70aedce5xf671757a51d06f11@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7910e810807080953rceab6c9ye7b7f91f021367c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<200807081324.47036.silfreed@silfreed.net>
Message-ID: <f7910e810807081029r53f30929x3c1a492622ef26b8@mail.gmail.com>

Innovation!
A step in the right direction.

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Douglas E. Warner <silfreed at silfreed.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 July 2008 12:53:23 John Woods wrote:
>> It has no scarry scarry messages about bad extensions... like mozdev
>> gets...
>>
>> ie it is whitelisted by default... mozdev is not.
>
> About this; Mozdev *does* provide a mechanism for secure installs and updates
> now, but we still get the initial warning about installing an extension from
> an untrusted host.
>
> Does anyone know if it would be possible to create an extension that would add
> mozdev.org as a trusted source in Firefox?  We could host this on AMO so
> extension developers on Mozdev would only need to require this extension
> before doing installs from Mozdev.org
>
> If the warning about installing from Mozdev was removed the barrier for new
> users would be greatly reduced.
>
> -Doug
>
> --
> Douglas E. Warner    <silfreed at silfreed.net>    Site Developer
> Mozdev.org           http://www.mozdev.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
>

From varun21 at gmail.com  Tue Jul  8 10:41:30 2008
From: varun21 at gmail.com (Shivanand Sharma / Varun)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 23:11:30 +0530
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO vs. mozdev was: Awaiting extension upgrade
	approval
In-Reply-To: <f7910e810807081029r53f30929x3c1a492622ef26b8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <719dced30807080941s70aedce5xf671757a51d06f11@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7910e810807080953rceab6c9ye7b7f91f021367c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<200807081324.47036.silfreed@silfreed.net>
	<f7910e810807081029r53f30929x3c1a492622ef26b8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1a9fd9700807081041g619a88eel41d7f36b47b66ebf@mail.gmail.com>

in reply to Douglas:

>>Does anyone know if it would be possible to create an extension that would
add
mozdev.org as a trusted source in Firefox?

Is it just a matter of adding the site to options > security > exception >
allowed sites? We are just trying to get rid of the browser warning bar at
the top of the screen, right?

Regards
Shivanand Sharma

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 10:59 PM, John Woods <johnrw at gmail.com> wrote:

> Innovation!
> A step in the right direction.
>
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Douglas E. Warner <silfreed at silfreed.net>
> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 08 July 2008 12:53:23 John Woods wrote:
> >> It has no scarry scarry messages about bad extensions... like mozdev
> >> gets...
> >>
> >> ie it is whitelisted by default... mozdev is not.
> >
> > About this; Mozdev *does* provide a mechanism for secure installs and
> updates
> > now, but we still get the initial warning about installing an extension
> from
> > an untrusted host.
> >
> > Does anyone know if it would be possible to create an extension that
> would add
> > mozdev.org as a trusted source in Firefox?  We could host this on AMO so
> > extension developers on Mozdev would only need to require this extension
> > before doing installs from Mozdev.org
> >
> > If the warning about installing from Mozdev was removed the barrier for
> new
> > users would be greatly reduced.
> >
> > -Doug
> >
> > --
> > Douglas E. Warner    <silfreed at silfreed.net>    Site Developer
> > Mozdev.org           http://www.mozdev.org
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Project_owners mailing list
> > Project_owners at mozdev.org
> > https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>



-- 
Cheers!
Shivanand Sharma
Editor: http://binaryturf.com
Technology, Design, Monetization
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080708/654a5310/attachment.html>

From myk at mozilla.org  Tue Jul  8 10:43:36 2008
From: myk at mozilla.org (Myk Melez)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 10:43:36 -0700
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO vs. mozdev was: Awaiting extension upgrade
 approval
In-Reply-To: <719dced30807080941s70aedce5xf671757a51d06f11@mail.gmail.com>
References: <719dced30807080941s70aedce5xf671757a51d06f11@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4873A748.1080606@mozilla.org>

Godmar Back wrote:
> Related to the AMO approval thread:
>
> Could somebody summarize what the advantages of hosting on AMO are as
> compared to hosting at mozdev?
>   
Besides the advantages John listed, AMO focuses on distribution to the 
hundreds of millions of Mozilla users, while Mozdev focuses on tools for 
project owners, so they have very different target audiences.

I see them as complementary.  Mozdev is the place to host your project, 
while AMO is the place to distribute it.  So I recommend "hosting" on both.

And despite all the bitter vitriol by inveterate MoFo/MoCo-haters, AMO 
has made a significant positive impact in the web experience for Mozilla 
users and has been a good thing for Mozdev as well, since its ease of 
use and attention to security expands the pool of users willing to try 
the extensions developed here.

Nevertheless, it's true that the AMO review process is broken.  It's 
been getting better, though.  For example, extensions no longer need 
review to be visible on the site (users just need to log in to install 
them).

So rather than giving up on it, the better thing to do would be to 
continue to press our concerns with the AMO dev team.  That'll do much 
more to get our extensions distributed to our users than simply giving 
up on AMO and distributing from Mozdev (no matter how much effort we 
expend, at significant opportunity cost, to improve Mozdev distribution).

-myk


From silfreed at silfreed.net  Tue Jul  8 10:44:10 2008
From: silfreed at silfreed.net (Douglas E. Warner)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:44:10 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO vs. mozdev was: Awaiting extension upgrade
	approval
In-Reply-To: <719dced30807081029v69da482au47a721d1fe10e16a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <719dced30807080941s70aedce5xf671757a51d06f11@mail.gmail.com>
	<200807081324.47036.silfreed@silfreed.net>
	<719dced30807081029v69da482au47a721d1fe10e16a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200807081344.11238.silfreed@silfreed.net>

On Tuesday 08 July 2008 13:29:38 Godmar Back wrote:
> That's a no-starter since such an extension would obviously not be
> approved on AMO.

Okay; but technically possible?  (maybe AMO will make an exception for 
Mozdev?)

-Doug

-- 
Douglas E. Warner    <silfreed at silfreed.net>    Site Developer
Mozdev.org           http://www.mozdev.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080708/4c57d4ba/attachment-0001.bin>

From varun21 at gmail.com  Tue Jul  8 10:49:15 2008
From: varun21 at gmail.com (Shivanand Sharma / Varun)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 23:19:15 +0530
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO vs. mozdev was: Awaiting extension upgrade
	approval
In-Reply-To: <200807081344.11238.silfreed@silfreed.net>
References: <719dced30807080941s70aedce5xf671757a51d06f11@mail.gmail.com>
	<200807081324.47036.silfreed@silfreed.net>
	<719dced30807081029v69da482au47a721d1fe10e16a@mail.gmail.com>
	<200807081344.11238.silfreed@silfreed.net>
Message-ID: <1a9fd9700807081049t349a6a04r692027580669cf12@mail.gmail.com>

If this is just about removing the browser warning about a site trying to
install addons, it is technically possible. I also believe mozdev may be
considered an exception by AMO considering there's no addon (I don't know of
one) which falters on AMO's extension policy (see
http://wiki.mozilla.org/Update:Editors/ReviewingGuide#Reviewing_Add-ons)

Regards
Shivanand Sharma

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Douglas E. Warner <silfreed at silfreed.net>
wrote:

> On Tuesday 08 July 2008 13:29:38 Godmar Back wrote:
> > That's a no-starter since such an extension would obviously not be
> > approved on AMO.
>
> Okay; but technically possible?  (maybe AMO will make an exception for
> Mozdev?)
>
> -Doug
>
> --
> Douglas E. Warner    <silfreed at silfreed.net>    Site Developer
> Mozdev.org           http://www.mozdev.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
>


-- 
Cheers!
Shivanand Sharma
Editor: http://binaryturf.com
Technology, Design, Monetization
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080708/11bf373c/attachment.html>

From silfreed at silfreed.net  Tue Jul  8 11:04:10 2008
From: silfreed at silfreed.net (Douglas E. Warner)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:04:10 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO vs. mozdev was: Awaiting extension upgrade
	approval
In-Reply-To: <1a9fd9700807081041g619a88eel41d7f36b47b66ebf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <719dced30807080941s70aedce5xf671757a51d06f11@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7910e810807081029r53f30929x3c1a492622ef26b8@mail.gmail.com>
	<1a9fd9700807081041g619a88eel41d7f36b47b66ebf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200807081404.10646.silfreed@silfreed.net>

On Tuesday 08 July 2008 13:41:30 Shivanand Sharma / Varun wrote:
> Is it just a matter of adding the site to options > security > exception >
> allowed sites? We are just trying to get rid of the browser warning bar at
> the top of the screen, right?

That was the idea, yeah.

That way people could securely install extensions from Mozdev by first 
requiring users install the "Mozdev extension" and then install from 
www.mozdev.org.

-Doug

-- 
Douglas E. Warner    <silfreed at silfreed.net>    Site Developer
Mozdev.org           http://www.mozdev.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080708/1d3b6f31/attachment.bin>

From johnrw at gmail.com  Tue Jul  8 11:25:28 2008
From: johnrw at gmail.com (John Woods)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:25:28 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO vs. mozdev was: Awaiting extension upgrade
	approval
In-Reply-To: <36530.31143.qm@web33007.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <719dced30807080941s70aedce5xf671757a51d06f11@mail.gmail.com>
	<36530.31143.qm@web33007.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f7910e810807081125n29034e3ey8d73597818e823d@mail.gmail.com>

Well I did some reading... and there is a way for "some" authors to
have automatic
approval... if an author requests it. I think the email address is
amo-editors at mozilla.org
or editors-amo at mozilla.org or some such. My extension is the thirty
third one ever hosted
by update.mozilla.org... and since I have been through most of the
growing pains as alot of
us here have been...  I don't like being forced to beg by some Johnny
come latelies for a
compatibility release approval.

I refuse to do it.

Someone wants to challenge my reputation... fine. Do it.
But don't leave my stuff in http://purgatory.addons.mozilla.org
while approving someone who begs better but has been in the queue
a shorter time than mine as happened on THIS list this morning...

Here is my way to avoid this...
Automatic approval based on time expiration...
If I submit on July 1, amo has 2 weeks to review it.
(It should even publish an email of extensions reaching automatic
approval to it's own Editors so they can act on unknown extensions.)

Problems solved... and I can upload it and forget it... instead of
seeing reviews that say great... but still no cigar on approval.

Amo is not supposed to stand in the way of extensions THEY
don't like or care about... (it is those users that matter most, right?)

Compatibility releases are for the users that ALREADY have
an extension installed... but disabled by Master Browser....

Either make amo work... in an unbiased way... or hire people
to do the job. 8 million downloads in a day... with a greater and greater
load of extension dependency, and it's approval process falling on volunteers
is plainly not sufficient.

I raised this issue once before... and someone from mozilla.org assured
me mozilla had hired more people for the review process.

Btw, Since I recently discovered that google cuts mozilla.org
advertisement revenue
for searches originating from the built in search box... I finally
understand why
the Googlebar got so "unloved" over there. Even still, the built in
Search Box...
can't touch the utility value of the Googlebar.

Sorry for unloading on ya... :)
John
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:34 PM, David Boswell <davidwboswell at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Could somebody summarize what the advantages of hosting on
>> AMO are as compared to hosting at mozdev?
>
> I think AMO and mozdev have two very different audiences.  AMO is intended to be a site where end users download add-ons and mozdev is a place where developers create add-ons (plus create other things such as applications, community portals...).  You can see this in what the sites offer.  For instance, AMO doesn't provide bugzilla, CVS/HG or other developer tools, but it does offer a number of tools for developers to promote their projects.
>
> I think the best solution to the current frustration people are talking about is to figure out how to get the two sites to work together.  For instance, we could have a way for mozdev project owners to easily add and update their projects on AMO.  This sort of integration has been talked about for a long time, but it's a matter of making it happen.
>
> It would be great for project owners to write down how they'd like to see mozdev and AMO integrate to make their lives easier and then we can work with the AMO team to try to make this happen.
>
> David
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>

From johnrw at gmail.com  Tue Jul  8 14:00:06 2008
From: johnrw at gmail.com (John Woods)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 17:00:06 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO vs. mozdev was: Awaiting extension upgrade
	approval
In-Reply-To: <200807081324.47036.silfreed@silfreed.net>
References: <719dced30807080941s70aedce5xf671757a51d06f11@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7910e810807080953rceab6c9ye7b7f91f021367c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<200807081324.47036.silfreed@silfreed.net>
Message-ID: <f7910e810807081400h6dc9af64p1c5714f5363417cb@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Douglas E. Warner <silfreed at silfreed.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 July 2008 12:53:23 John Woods wrote:
>> It has no scarry scarry messages about bad extensions... like mozdev
>> gets...
>>
>> ie it is whitelisted by default... mozdev is not.
>
> About this; Mozdev *does* provide a mechanism for secure installs and updates
> now, but we still get the initial warning about installing an extension from
> an untrusted host.
>

Secure updates? Got a link? Sorry if it has been discussed already.

Still, I like that extension idea... it doesn't need to be hosted on amo.

> Does anyone know if it would be possible to create an extension that would add
> mozdev.org as a trusted source in Firefox?  We could host this on AMO so
> extension developers on Mozdev would only need to require this extension
> before doing installs from Mozdev.org
>
> If the warning about installing from Mozdev was removed the barrier for new
> users would be greatly reduced.
>
> -Doug
>
> --
> Douglas E. Warner    <silfreed at silfreed.net>    Site Developer
> Mozdev.org           http://www.mozdev.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
>

From johnm555 at gmail.com  Tue Jul  8 14:07:16 2008
From: johnm555 at gmail.com (John Marshall)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 17:07:16 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO vs. mozdev was: Awaiting extension upgrade
	approval
In-Reply-To: <f7910e810807081400h6dc9af64p1c5714f5363417cb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <719dced30807080941s70aedce5xf671757a51d06f11@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7910e810807080953rceab6c9ye7b7f91f021367c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<200807081324.47036.silfreed@silfreed.net>
	<f7910e810807081400h6dc9af64p1c5714f5363417cb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4e7ecbc40807081407o35dc0e9eg32ea7ab9628a7955@mail.gmail.com>

With Firefox 3 only requiring you to press 'Allow' I don't really think an
extension to hide that is totally necessary. It's much easier than it was in
Firefox 2

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 5:00 PM, John Woods <johnrw at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Douglas E. Warner <silfreed at silfreed.net>
> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 08 July 2008 12:53:23 John Woods wrote:
> >> It has no scarry scarry messages about bad extensions... like mozdev
> >> gets...
> >>
> >> ie it is whitelisted by default... mozdev is not.
> >
> > About this; Mozdev *does* provide a mechanism for secure installs and
> updates
> > now, but we still get the initial warning about installing an extension
> from
> > an untrusted host.
> >
>
> Secure updates? Got a link? Sorry if it has been discussed already.
>
> Still, I like that extension idea... it doesn't need to be hosted on amo.
>
> > Does anyone know if it would be possible to create an extension that
> would add
> > mozdev.org as a trusted source in Firefox?  We could host this on AMO so
> > extension developers on Mozdev would only need to require this extension
> > before doing installs from Mozdev.org
> >
> > If the warning about installing from Mozdev was removed the barrier for
> new
> > users would be greatly reduced.
> >
> > -Doug
> >
> > --
> > Douglas E. Warner    <silfreed at silfreed.net>    Site Developer
> > Mozdev.org           http://www.mozdev.org
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Project_owners mailing list
> > Project_owners at mozdev.org
> > https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080708/4dc90ff9/attachment.html>

From silfreed at silfreed.net  Tue Jul  8 20:05:42 2008
From: silfreed at silfreed.net (Douglas E. Warner)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 23:05:42 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO vs. mozdev was: Awaiting extension upgrade
	approval
In-Reply-To: <f7910e810807081400h6dc9af64p1c5714f5363417cb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <719dced30807080941s70aedce5xf671757a51d06f11@mail.gmail.com>
	<200807081324.47036.silfreed@silfreed.net>
	<f7910e810807081400h6dc9af64p1c5714f5363417cb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200807082305.47471.silfreed@silfreed.net>

On Tuesday 08 July 2008 17:00:06 John Woods wrote:
> Secure updates? Got a link? Sorry if it has been discussed already.

There's a bunch of information on this page:
http://www.mozdev.org/drupal/wiki/MozdevDownloadReleases

-Doug

-- 
Douglas E. Warner    <silfreed at silfreed.net>    Site Developer
Mozdev.org           http://www.mozdev.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080708/2609088a/attachment.bin>

From johnrw at gmail.com  Tue Jul  8 20:19:27 2008
From: johnrw at gmail.com (John Woods)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 23:19:27 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO vs. mozdev was: Awaiting extension upgrade
	approval
In-Reply-To: <200807082305.47471.silfreed@silfreed.net>
References: <719dced30807080941s70aedce5xf671757a51d06f11@mail.gmail.com>
	<200807081324.47036.silfreed@silfreed.net>
	<f7910e810807081400h6dc9af64p1c5714f5363417cb@mail.gmail.com>
	<200807082305.47471.silfreed@silfreed.net>
Message-ID: <f7910e810807082019w1b23164bocc16c905b89eae1e@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you.
:)

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Douglas E. Warner
<silfreed at silfreed.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 July 2008 17:00:06 John Woods wrote:
>> Secure updates? Got a link? Sorry if it has been discussed already.
>
> There's a bunch of information on this page:
> http://www.mozdev.org/drupal/wiki/MozdevDownloadReleases
>
> -Doug
>
> --
> Douglas E. Warner    <silfreed at silfreed.net>    Site Developer
> Mozdev.org           http://www.mozdev.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
>

From mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com  Tue Jul  8 21:30:52 2008
From: mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com (Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla)
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 06:30:52 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO vs. mozdev was: Awaiting extension upgrade
	approval
In-Reply-To: <mailman.160.1215539027.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
References: <719dced30807080941s70aedce5xf671757a51d06f11@mail.gmail.com>
	<mailman.160.1215539027.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g51ett$j4n$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

Myk Melez wrote:
> Godmar Back wrote:
>> Related to the AMO approval thread:
>>
>> Could somebody summarize what the advantages of hosting on AMO are as
>> compared to hosting at mozdev?
>>   
> Besides the advantages John listed, AMO focuses on distribution to the 
> hundreds of millions of Mozilla users, while Mozdev focuses on tools for 
> project owners, so they have very different target audiences.
> 
> I see them as complementary.  Mozdev is the place to host your project, 
> while AMO is the place to distribute it.  So I recommend "hosting" on both.
> 
> And despite all the bitter vitriol by inveterate MoFo/MoCo-haters, 

Ridiculous!  Our criticism has *nothing* to do with hate, but everything 
  with the limitation we run (ran) into.

> AMO 
> has made a significant positive impact in the web experience for Mozilla 
> users and has been a good thing for Mozdev as well, since its ease of 
> use and attention to security expands the pool of users willing to try 
> the extensions developed here.

Totally irrelevant for developers here.

> Nevertheless, it's true that the AMO review process is broken.  

So we're all on one line here. Cool.

> It's 
> been getting better, though.  For example, extensions no longer need 
> review to be visible on the site (users just need to log in to install 
> them).

MoFo should not try to act as foster parent, but embrace all project 
owners equally, just like they did in the past. An open mind, a bit of 
vision so that we can do the things we like, without getting payed a 
cent, just the way we want. Not the other way round.

> So rather than giving up on it, the better thing to do would be to 
> continue to press our concerns with the AMO dev team.  That'll do much 
> more to get our extensions distributed to our users than simply giving 
> up on AMO and distributing from Mozdev (no matter how much effort we 
> expend, at significant opportunity cost, to improve Mozdev distribution).
> 
> -myk

I rather see a fully independent entity taking control of all this.  If 
that's not mozdev.org it'll have to be someone else.

Michael

From mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com  Tue Jul  8 21:38:47 2008
From: mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com (Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla)
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 06:38:47 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO vs. mozdev was: Awaiting extension upgrade
	approval
In-Reply-To: <mailman.162.1215539363.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
References: <719dced30807080941s70aedce5xf671757a51d06f11@mail.gmail.com>	<200807081324.47036.silfreed@silfreed.net>	<719dced30807081029v69da482au47a721d1fe10e16a@mail.gmail.com>	<200807081344.11238.silfreed@silfreed.net>
	<mailman.162.1215539363.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g51fcm$j4n$2@mozdev.mozdev.org>

Shivanand Sharma / Varun wrote:
> If this is just about removing the browser warning about a site trying to
> install addons, it is technically possible. I also believe mozdev may be
> considered an exception by AMO considering there's no addon (I don't know of
> one) which falters on AMO's extension policy (see
> http://wiki.mozilla.org/Update:Editors/ReviewingGuide#Reviewing_Add-ons)
> 
> Regards
> Shivanand Sharma

<quote>
Add-ons dealing with the following content should always be sandbox'ed 
and never sent public:

     * Add-ons which find or display porn, adult and sexually explicit 
material
     * Add-ons dealing with prostitution (and escort services)
</quote>

ROFL  I was JUST about to write a crap load of MoPorn add-ons (sorry I 
couldn't resist).

From neil at parkwaycc.co.uk  Wed Jul  9 03:17:50 2008
From: neil at parkwaycc.co.uk (Neil)
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 11:17:50 +0100
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO vs. mozdev was: Awaiting extension upgrade
	approval
In-Reply-To: <g51fcm$j4n$2@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <719dced30807080941s70aedce5xf671757a51d06f11@mail.gmail.com>	<200807081324.47036.silfreed@silfreed.net>	<719dced30807081029v69da482au47a721d1fe10e16a@mail.gmail.com>	<200807081344.11238.silfreed@silfreed.net>
	<mailman.162.1215539363.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g51fcm$j4n$2@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g5238g$30nh$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla wrote:

> <quote>
> Add-ons dealing with the following content should always be sandbox'ed 
> and never sent public:
>
>     * Add-ons which find or display porn, adult and sexually explicit 
> material
>     * Add-ons dealing with prostitution (and escort services)
> </quote>

I never thought to look for those add-ons - what category are they in? ;-)

From varun21 at gmail.com  Wed Jul  9 05:19:56 2008
From: varun21 at gmail.com (Shivanand Sharma / Varun)
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 17:49:56 +0530
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO vs. mozdev was: Awaiting extension upgrade
	approval
In-Reply-To: <g5238g$30nh$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <719dced30807080941s70aedce5xf671757a51d06f11@mail.gmail.com>
	<200807081324.47036.silfreed@silfreed.net>
	<719dced30807081029v69da482au47a721d1fe10e16a@mail.gmail.com>
	<200807081344.11238.silfreed@silfreed.net>
	<mailman.162.1215539363.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g51fcm$j4n$2@mozdev.mozdev.org> <g5238g$30nh$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <1a9fd9700807090519j690c5063tbea15019d02da7b2@mail.gmail.com>

...and I'll take that as an inspiration. I can try something similar. I'm
good at them;)

On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Neil <neil at parkwaycc.co.uk> wrote:

> Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla wrote:
>
>  <quote>
>> Add-ons dealing with the following content should always be sandbox'ed and
>> never sent public:
>>
>>    * Add-ons which find or display porn, adult and sexually explicit
>> material
>>    * Add-ons dealing with prostitution (and escort services)
>> </quote>
>>
>
> I never thought to look for those add-ons - what category are they in? ;-)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>



-- 
Cheers!
Shivanand Sharma
Editor: http://binaryturf.com
Technology, Design, Monetization
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080709/1b721835/attachment-0001.html>

From o.e.ekker at gmail.com  Wed Jul  9 06:39:17 2008
From: o.e.ekker at gmail.com (Onno Ekker)
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 15:39:17 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO vs. mozdev was: Awaiting extension upgrade
	approval
In-Reply-To: <g5238g$30nh$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <719dced30807080941s70aedce5xf671757a51d06f11@mail.gmail.com>
	<200807081324.47036.silfreed@silfreed.net>
	<719dced30807081029v69da482au47a721d1fe10e16a@mail.gmail.com>
	<200807081344.11238.silfreed@silfreed.net>
	<mailman.162.1215539363.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g51fcm$j4n$2@mozdev.mozdev.org> <g5238g$30nh$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <767de81b0807090639n594d8eebh79931cc9141f7aa9@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Neil <neil at parkwaycc.co.uk> wrote:

> Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla wrote:
>
>  <quote>
>> Add-ons dealing with the following content should always be sandbox'ed and
>> never sent public:
>>
>>    * Add-ons which find or display porn, adult and sexually explicit
>> material
>>    * Add-ons dealing with prostitution (and escort services)
>> </quote>
>>
>
> I never thought to look for those add-ons - what category are they in? ;-)


"category" sandbox
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080709/482e9371/attachment.html>

From philip.chee at gmail.com  Wed Jul  9 07:20:31 2008
From: philip.chee at gmail.com (Philip Chee)
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 22:20:31 +0800
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO vs. mozdev was: Awaiting extension upgrade
	approval
In-Reply-To: <mailman.185.1215610765.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
References: <719dced30807080941s70aedce5xf671757a51d06f11@mail.gmail.com>	<200807081324.47036.silfreed@silfreed.net>	<719dced30807081029v69da482au47a721d1fe10e16a@mail.gmail.com>	<200807081344.11238.silfreed@silfreed.net>	<mailman.162.1215539363.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>	<g51fcm$j4n$2@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<g5238g$30nh$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<mailman.185.1215610765.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g52h9i$1bob$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 15:39:17 +0200, Onno Ekker wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Neil <neil at parkwaycc.co.uk> wrote:

>> I never thought to look for those add-ons - what category are they in? ;-)
> "category" sandbox

I thought that they were "experimental"?

Phil

-- 
Philip Chee <philip at aleytys.pc.my>, <philip.chee at gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
[ ]Help... Help on 'Help'... Help on 'Help on 'Help''... HEEELLPP!!!
* TagZilla 0.066.6


From myfirstnamehere at gawab.com  Wed Jul  9 08:18:49 2008
From: myfirstnamehere at gawab.com (Benoit Renard, msnmsgr)
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 17:18:49 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO vs. mozdev was: Awaiting extension upgrade
	approval
In-Reply-To: <mailman.150.1215536015.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
References: <719dced30807080941s70aedce5xf671757a51d06f11@mail.gmail.com>
	<mailman.150.1215536015.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g52ktp$1j54$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

My main beef with AMO is that it's SeaMonkey-unfriendly. I once filed a 
bug detailing all the wrong listings for extensions, and it took one 
year for it to be resolved. But themes and extensions still often get 
listed as compatible with SeaMonkey when they actually aren't.

So we get frustrated users on MozillaZine rightly complaining that they 
tried to install X extension and the only thing they got was "install 
script not found".

Ridiculous.

From brian at mozdev.org  Wed Jul  9 08:34:36 2008
From: brian at mozdev.org (Brian King)
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 17:34:36 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] Announcing Mercurial at Mozdev
In-Reply-To: <200807071556.56433.silfreed@silfreed.net>
References: <200807071556.56433.silfreed@silfreed.net>
Message-ID: <4874DA8C.6040109@mozdev.org>

Note that if you are working with the full Mozilla build toolset on 
Windows, Mercurial is now packaged with MozillaBuild from 1.3 onwards:

http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Windows_Build_Prerequisites#MozillaBuild

Here is the bug that has more discussion on the defaults (Mercurial.ini) 
shipped with it:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=402224

- Brian

Douglas E. Warner wrote:
> We're happy to announce the availability of Mercurial for hosting 
> project sources at Mozdev.
> 
> Documentation can be found here:
> http://www.mozdev.org/drupal/wiki/MozdevMercurial
> 
> The biggest caveats:
> * CVS is still necessary for maintaining the website and downloads 
> (fixing this is on our roadmap)
> * Projects' source information page needs updated by the PO to include 
> information on Mercurial
> * We weren't planning on removing the old sources from CVS and we don't 
> have a mechanism for locking CVS, so it might slightly confusing to new 
> users or contributors as to where to get the canonical source for a 
> project if they switch to from CVS to Mercurial
> 
> If you're interested in having Mercurial setup for your project, head 
> over to the documentation page [1] and click the link to request a new 
> Mercurial repository.
> 
> -Doug
> 
> [1] http://www.mozdev.org/drupal/wiki/MozdevMercurial
> 
> -- 
> Douglas E. Warner <silfreed at silfreed.net> Site Developer
> Mozdev.org http://www.mozdev.org
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners


From mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com  Wed Jul  9 09:33:12 2008
From: mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com (Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla)
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 18:33:12 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO vs. mozdev was: Awaiting extension upgrade
	approval
In-Reply-To: <g52ktp$1j54$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <719dced30807080941s70aedce5xf671757a51d06f11@mail.gmail.com>
	<mailman.150.1215536015.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g52ktp$1j54$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g52p87$240r$2@mozdev.mozdev.org>

Benoit Renard, msnmsgr wrote:
> My main beef with AMO is that it's SeaMonkey-unfriendly. I once filed a 
> bug detailing all the wrong listings for extensions, and it took one 
> year for it to be resolved. But themes and extensions still often get 
> listed as compatible with SeaMonkey when they actually aren't.
> 
> So we get frustrated users on MozillaZine rightly complaining that they 
> tried to install X extension and the only thing they got was "install 
> script not found".
> 
> Ridiculous.

Not to mention the privacy implications related to the download of, 
installation of and startup of your browser.  Sounds familiar?  Google 
stats anyone?

From brian at mozdev.org  Thu Jul 10 11:01:35 2008
From: brian at mozdev.org (Brian King)
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:01:35 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] Mozdev @ OSCON 2008
Message-ID: <48764E7F.7040900@mozdev.org>

Read about it here:

http://www.mozdev.org/drupal/blog/Mozdev-OSCON-2008

If anyone will be there, please let us know, we would love to meet.

- Brian

From o.e.ekker at gmail.com  Fri Jul 11 01:30:04 2008
From: o.e.ekker at gmail.com (Onno Ekker)
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:30:04 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO vs. mozdev was: Awaiting extension upgrade
 approval
Message-ID: <48771a0a.2135440a.2e77.5973@mx.google.com>

l+31

-----Original Message-----
From: "Douglas E. Warner" <silfreed at silfreed.net>
To: "Mozdev Project Owners List" <project_owners at mozdev.org>
Sent: 2008-07-09 5:05
Subject: Re: [Project_owners] AMO vs. mozdev was: Awaiting extension upgrade approval

On Tuesday 08 July 2008 17:00:06 John Woods wrote:
> Secure updates? Got a link? Sorry if it has been discussed already.

There's a bunch of information on this page:
http://www.mozdev.org/drupal/wiki/MozdevDownloadReleases

-Doug

-- 
Douglas E. Warner    <silfreed at silfreed.net>    Site Developer
Mozdev.org           http://www.mozdev.org



From stevel at songbirdnest.com  Sun Jul 13 14:52:31 2008
From: stevel at songbirdnest.com (Stephen Lau)
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:52:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Project_owners] Mozdev @ OSCON 2008
In-Reply-To: <48764E7F.7040900@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <5384410.341215985951751.JavaMail.root@mail>

Songbird will be there! :) (as mentioned in your blog post)

For anyone that'll be @ OSCON, we're co-hosting a party Thursday night (along with Mozilla, Vidoop, OSL, OpenSourcery, and Jive); stop by the Mozilla booth (where we'll have a table) and make sure to say hi and get an invite for the party!

Looking forward to seeing you again Brian, and meeting some new folks.

cheers,
steve

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian King" <brian at mozdev.org>
To: "project owners" <project_owners at mozdev.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 11:01:35 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: [Project_owners] Mozdev @ OSCON 2008

Read about it here:

http://www.mozdev.org/drupal/blog/Mozdev-OSCON-2008

If anyone will be there, please let us know, we would love to meet.

- Brian
_______________________________________________
Project_owners mailing list
Project_owners at mozdev.org
https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners

From johnrw at gmail.com  Sun Jul 13 20:32:45 2008
From: johnrw at gmail.com (John Woods)
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 23:32:45 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO vs. mozdev was: Awaiting extension upgrade
	approval
In-Reply-To: <f7910e810807131638y40a1bd99h75f90f3581cea0b9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <48771a0a.2135440a.2e77.5973@mx.google.com>
	<f7910e810807131638y40a1bd99h75f90f3581cea0b9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f7910e810807132032q324466f0m75c82b5436c041a8@mail.gmail.com>

> From: Onno Ekker <o.e.ekker at gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 4:30 AM
> To: Mozdev Project Owners List <project_owners at mozdev.org>
>
>
> l+31
>
>

Huh?

Well at any rate... if anyone wants to chime in on amo review performance...
there may be a better bug than this one... but I didn't find it.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=340287

From o.e.ekker at gmail.com  Mon Jul 14 05:30:32 2008
From: o.e.ekker at gmail.com (Onno Ekker)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:30:32 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO vs. mozdev was: Awaiting extension upgrade
	approval
In-Reply-To: <f7910e810807132032q324466f0m75c82b5436c041a8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <48771a0a.2135440a.2e77.5973@mx.google.com>
	<f7910e810807131638y40a1bd99h75f90f3581cea0b9@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7910e810807132032q324466f0m75c82b5436c041a8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <767de81b0807140530h7a8e2e0aw7eae457bcbb01c30@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:32 AM, John Woods <johnrw at gmail.com> wrote:

> > From: Onno Ekker <o.e.ekker at gmail.com>
> > Date: Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 4:30 AM
> > To: Mozdev Project Owners List <project_owners at mozdev.org>
> >
> >
> > l+31
> >
> >
>
> Huh?
>
> Well at any rate... if anyone wants to chime in on amo review
> performance...
> there may be a better bug than this one... but I didn't find it.
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=340287
>

Sorry, haven't got a clue as to where that l+31 came from...

Another bug on the pending queue is the following:
Proposal for a publicly accessible interface to the pending updates queue
<https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=427104>

I think it's amazing that there is so little on this matter on bugzilla. Do
all project owners think it's no use to file bugs of vote for existing
bugs???

Since anyone can start a new project on mozdev and projects aren't actively
reviewed here, it would be a bad idea for amo (or even mozdev) to just trust
all projects from mozdev.

A better bet might be to become a trusted add-on. I don't think the concept
of trusted add-ons is any safe, but since amo uses it, it is probably your
best bet to prevent future update problems. Unfortunately there isn't too
much info about trusted add-ons either, but I can imagine becoming trusted
involves a lot of hanging around and begging on irc ;-)

You can find further reading on the review process on Justin Scott's blog:
<http://blog.fligtar.com/2008/06/24/amo-add-on-review-status/>
<http://blog.fligtar.com/2006/11/21/reviewing-the-review-process/>

Onno
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080714/0e71c26a/attachment.html>

From mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 14 12:34:19 2008
From: mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com (Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:34:19 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO vs. mozdev was: Awaiting extension upgrade
	approval
In-Reply-To: <mailman.236.1216038645.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
References: <48771a0a.2135440a.2e77.5973@mx.google.com>	<f7910e810807131638y40a1bd99h75f90f3581cea0b9@mail.gmail.com>	<f7910e810807132032q324466f0m75c82b5436c041a8@mail.gmail.com>
	<mailman.236.1216038645.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g5g9nt$236v$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

Onno Ekker wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:32 AM, John Woods <johnrw at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> From: Onno Ekker <o.e.ekker at gmail.com>
>>> Date: Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 4:30 AM
>>> To: Mozdev Project Owners List <project_owners at mozdev.org>
>>>
>>>
>>> l+31
>>>
>>>
>> Huh?
>>
>> Well at any rate... if anyone wants to chime in on amo review
>> performance...
>> there may be a better bug than this one... but I didn't find it.
>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=340287
>>
> 
> Sorry, haven't got a clue as to where that l+31 came from...
> 
> Another bug on the pending queue is the following:
> Proposal for a publicly accessible interface to the pending updates queue
> <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=427104>
> 
> I think it's amazing that there is so little on this matter on bugzilla. Do
> all project owners think it's no use to file bugs of vote for existing
> bugs???

I don't vote because I don't think that works (it never worked before).

> Since anyone can start a new project on mozdev and projects aren't actively
> reviewed here, it would be a bad idea for amo (or even mozdev) to just trust
> all projects from mozdev.

The quality of reviews is key to success for both parties involved, but 
education is the most important and sometimes failing factor here. 
Sharing information, having good on-line documentation and possibly some 
sort of scanning script for add-ons would top it off.

Why isn't there a real knowledge base (mozdev.org corner anyone?) with 
real examples about the blunt errors made by developers.  Not to point 
fingers, no, but to help others.  Each error I make can then be turned 
into help for others.  Wouldn't that be great?

> A better bet might be to become a trusted add-on. I don't think the concept
> of trusted add-ons is any safe, but since amo uses it, it is probably your
> best bet to prevent future update problems. Unfortunately there isn't too
> much info about trusted add-ons either, but I can imagine becoming trusted
> involves a lot of hanging around and begging on irc ;-)

Nobody, not even mozilla should be considered to be 'trusted'. At least 
not blindly.

> You can find further reading on the review process on Justin Scott's blog:
> <http://blog.fligtar.com/2008/06/24/amo-add-on-review-status/>
> <http://blog.fligtar.com/2006/11/21/reviewing-the-review-process/>

Ouch man.  That is exactly where the shoe fits, or not.  These few good 
people must have their hands full of work with these reviews.  Good to 
see 'our' Brian King to be one of them.  Thank you Brian!

Now, the main question remains and that to me is: "Can we help this AMO 
ecosystem amd if yes how?".

We might, but at what price?  My vote goes out to a pool of 'trusted' 
reviewers for projects hosted at mozdev.org  That my firends should help 
anyone (think examples here) including me.

Michael

From myfirstnamehere at gawab.com  Tue Jul 15 04:05:59 2008
From: myfirstnamehere at gawab.com (Benoit Renard, msnmsgr)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:05:59 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO vs. mozdev was: Awaiting extension upgrade
	approval
In-Reply-To: <g5g9nt$236v$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <48771a0a.2135440a.2e77.5973@mx.google.com>	<f7910e810807131638y40a1bd99h75f90f3581cea0b9@mail.gmail.com>	<f7910e810807132032q324466f0m75c82b5436c041a8@mail.gmail.com>
	<mailman.236.1216038645.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g5g9nt$236v$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g5i0bv$1fgq$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla wrote:
> I don't vote because I don't think that works (it never worked before).

The Mozilla developers themselves (at least in #seamonkey) say votes 
don't matter. The only reason I vote on bugs is to have a nice list of 
bugs that matter to me on BugZilla under "My Votes". ;)

From eric.jung at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 15 08:12:40 2008
From: eric.jung at yahoo.com (Eric H. Jung)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:12:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Project_owners] Awaiting extension upgrade approval
Message-ID: <608824.56279.qm@web30304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

----- Original Message ----

> From: John Woods <johnrw at gmail.com>

> If mozdev had download tracking... and made it easier to sign my xpi's...
> I would stop using amo altogether.

Hi John,

Can you elaborate on these comments? We're always looking for ideas. I thought mozdev download tracking is already pretty solid, no? As for signing XPIs, haven't you tried the new file management system?

Eric


      

From eric.jung at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 15 08:59:26 2008
From: eric.jung at yahoo.com (Eric H. Jung)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:59:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO vs. mozdev was: Awaiting extension upgrade
	approval
Message-ID: <360642.7816.qm@web30307.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

From: Onno Ekker <o.e.ekker at gmail.com>


>A better bet might be to become a trusted add-on. I don't think the concept of trusted add-ons is any safe, but since amo uses it, it is probably your best bet to prevent future 
>update problems. Unfortunately there isn't too much info about trusted add-ons either, but I can imagine becoming trusted involves a lot of hanging around and begging on irc ;-)

One of my add-ons is trusted. I neither begged nor even asked for it to be trusted. Indeed, I didn't even know what a "trusted addon" was. One day, I went to upload a new version of this addon to AMO and was presented with the option to publish the new version to the sandbox or to the public. It'd become trusted. I still don't really know how it happened :)


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080715/bad45cd9/attachment.html>

From eric.jung at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 15 09:03:46 2008
From: eric.jung at yahoo.com (Eric H. Jung)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:03:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Project_owners] Initialising an extension once per session
Message-ID: <558765.89458.qm@web30302.mail.mud.yahoo.com>





----- Original Message ----
> From: Godmar Back <godmar at gmail.com>

 
> Yes - implement your code as a XPCOM Component:
> http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/How_to_Build_an_XPCOM_Component_in_Javascript
> 
> - Godmar

There's probably no need to tell this to Brian, the co-author of "Creating Applications with Mozilla"
http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596000523/index.html?CMP=IL7015

:)


      

From eric.jung at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 15 09:08:35 2008
From: eric.jung at yahoo.com (Eric H. Jung)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:08:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Project_owners] Initialising an extension once per session
Message-ID: <694171.33912.qm@web30305.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

----- Original Message ----

> From: Brian King <brian at mozdev.org>
> I initialise my Firefox extensions the standard way as outlined here 
> (using addEventListener):
> 
> http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Code_snippets:On_page_load#Running_code_on_an_extension.27s_first_run_or_after_an_extension.27s_update
> 
> However, this is fired for every new browser window. Is there a way to 
> make it happen only once per browser session?
> 
> Notes:
> 
> -> this is not about first run, but rather run per session
> -> removing the event listener as in the example does not do it
> -> i'd like to avoid using prefs if possible

Perhaps there's a notification fired when a session starts that you can observe?


      

From godmar at gmail.com  Tue Jul 15 09:12:15 2008
From: godmar at gmail.com (Godmar Back)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:12:15 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] Initialising an extension once per session
In-Reply-To: <558765.89458.qm@web30302.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <558765.89458.qm@web30302.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <719dced30807150912v43e6bb44k8ef7965f0556eb06@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Eric H. Jung <eric.jung at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Godmar Back <godmar at gmail.com>
>
>
>> Yes - implement your code as a XPCOM Component:
>> http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/How_to_Build_an_XPCOM_Component_in_Javascript
>
> There's probably no need to tell this to Brian, the co-author of "Creating Applications with Mozilla"
> http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596000523/index.html?CMP=IL7015
>
> :)
>

Ha - so what was he really asking?

 - Godmar

From brian at mozdev.org  Tue Jul 15 09:37:40 2008
From: brian at mozdev.org (Brian King)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:37:40 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO : Improving the Review/Editorial Process
Message-ID: <487CD254.5080809@mozdev.org>

There has been a lot of talk about this in recent threads, so I have a 
proposal.

The upcoming Firefox Summit has a few AMO talks on the schedule:

http://wiki.mozilla.org/Summit2008/Sessions/Schedule

One of them is titled just AMO: Editorial Process, which I believe will 
be a banging of heads to come up with ways to improve things. This is 
one of the high priorities at AMO.

So what I would like you to do is reply to this post with your ideas on 
how to improve the process. I will then compile a list and present it at 
the summit. I might also blog about it. Even if some of the ideas are 
followed through on, that would be a step in the right direction.

Put your ideas into 3 separate categories:

1) General : What the pain points are for you, and a proposal on how to 
fix/improve. Let's focus on the review process, but site bugs can be 
included.
2) Feature Requests : Things you would like to see (or removed) on the site.
3) Mozdev ties : Ideas on how Mozdev could integrate with AMO.

Guidelines:

- Be constructive!
- Keep each entry short. One liners where possible.
- Cite bugs if they exist.
- Do not follow-up on any ideas proposed, especially to knock it down. 
The exception might be to clarify a broken link or cite a bug. You can 
open a new thread if you like to start a discussion on a particular 
feature. Let's work on the assumption that all ideas are good ideas for now.

Thanks,
- Brian

From eric.jung at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 15 09:48:58 2008
From: eric.jung at yahoo.com (Eric H. Jung)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:48:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Project_owners] Initialising an extension once per session
Message-ID: <265782.33009.qm@web30304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

----- Original Message ----

> From: Eric H. Jung <eric.jung at yahoo.com>
> To: Mozdev Project Owners List <project_owners at mozdev.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 12:08:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [Project_owners] Initialising an extension once per session
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> 
> > From: Brian King 
> > I initialise my Firefox extensions the standard way as outlined here 
> > (using addEventListener):
> > 
> > 
> http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Code_snippets:On_page_load#Running_code_on_an_extension.27s_first_run_or_after_an_extension.27s_update
> > 
> > However, this is fired for every new browser window. Is there a way to 
> > make it happen only once per browser session?
> > 
> > Notes:
> > 
> > -> this is not about first run, but rather run per session
> > -> removing the event listener as in the example does not do it
> > -> i'd like to avoid using prefs if possible
> 
> Perhaps there's a notification fired when a session starts that you can observe?

To follow-up on my own suggestion:
http://mxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/browser/components/sessionstore/src/nsSessionStore.js
shows a few dispatchEvent() calls, dispatching SSTabRestoring, SSTabRestored, SSTabClosing, etc.

Would observing one or more of these suffice?


      

From myk at mozilla.org  Tue Jul 15 11:09:08 2008
From: myk at mozilla.org (Myk Melez)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:09:08 -0700
Subject: [Project_owners] Initialising an extension once per session
In-Reply-To: <265782.33009.qm@web30304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <265782.33009.qm@web30304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <487CE7C4.5080107@mozilla.org>

Eric H. Jung wrote:
> To follow-up on my own suggestion:
> http://mxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/browser/components/sessionstore/src/nsSessionStore.js
> shows a few dispatchEvent() calls, dispatching SSTabRestoring, SSTabRestored, SSTabClosing, etc.
>
> Would observing one or more of these suffice?
>   
If you want to wait until session store is finished restoring windows 
and tabs, you can observe the sessionstore-windows-restored 
notification.  A variety of other startup notifications are also available:

http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Observer_Notifications#Application_startup

-myk


From eric.jung at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 15 11:19:51 2008
From: eric.jung at yahoo.com (Eric H. Jung)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:19:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Project_owners] Initialising an extension once per session
Message-ID: <52983.74386.qm@web30308.mail.mud.yahoo.com>





----- Original Message ----
> From: Myk Melez <myk at mozilla.org>
> To: Mozdev Project Owners List <project_owners at mozdev.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 2:09:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [Project_owners] Initialising an extension once per session
> 
> Eric H. Jung wrote:
> > To follow-up on my own suggestion:
> > 
> http://mxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/browser/components/sessionstore/src/nsSessionStore.js
> > shows a few dispatchEvent() calls, dispatching SSTabRestoring, SSTabRestored, 
> SSTabClosing, etc.
> >
> > Would observing one or more of these suffice?
> >  
> If you want to wait until session store is finished restoring windows 
> and tabs, you can observe the sessionstore-windows-restored 
> notification.  A variety of other startup notifications are also available:
> 
> http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Observer_Notifications#Application_startup

I wonder if the session-related events fire if there's no session to restore? If not, Brian might be better off listening for profile-after-change or similar. Pretty sure that would only fire once regardless of how many browser windows are opened (assuming the user isn't starting with -no-remote)


      

From mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 15 12:49:03 2008
From: mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com (Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:49:03 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO : Improving the Review/Editorial Process
In-Reply-To: <mailman.263.1216139871.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
References: <mailman.263.1216139871.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g5iuvh$1sad$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

Brian King wrote:
> There has been a lot of talk about this in recent threads, so I have a 
> proposal.
> 
> The upcoming Firefox Summit has a few AMO talks on the schedule:
> 
> http://wiki.mozilla.org/Summit2008/Sessions/Schedule
> 
> One of them is titled just AMO: Editorial Process, which I believe will 
> be a banging of heads to come up with ways to improve things. This is 
> one of the high priorities at AMO.
> 
> So what I would like you to do is reply to this post with your ideas on 
> how to improve the process. I will then compile a list and present it at 
> the summit. I might also blog about it. Even if some of the ideas are 
> followed through on, that would be a step in the right direction.
> 
> Put your ideas into 3 separate categories:
> 
> 1) General : What the pain points are for you, and a proposal on how to 
> fix/improve. Let's focus on the review process, but site bugs can be 
> included.
> 2) Feature Requests : Things you would like to see (or removed) on the 
> site.
> 3) Mozdev ties : Ideas on how Mozdev could integrate with AMO.
> 
> Guidelines:
> 
> - Be constructive!
> - Keep each entry short. One liners where possible.
> - Cite bugs if they exist.
> - Do not follow-up on any ideas proposed, especially to knock it down. 
> The exception might be to clarify a broken link or cite a bug. You can 
> open a new thread if you like to start a discussion on a particular 
> feature. Let's work on the assumption that all ideas are good ideas for 
> now.
> 
> Thanks,
> - Brian

Thank you for hijacking my idea :-)

This is all I have to say about it: 
news://news.mozdev.org:119/g5g9nt$236v$1 at mozdev.mozdev.org

Michael

From eric.jung at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 15 13:24:32 2008
From: eric.jung at yahoo.com (Eric H. Jung)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:24:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO : Improving the Review/Editorial Process
Message-ID: <250563.2649.qm@web30304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>





----- Original Message ----
> From: "Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla" <mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com>


> Thank you for hijacking my idea :-)

Will you be at the 2008 Firefox Summit?


      

From mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 15 14:54:19 2008
From: mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com (Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 23:54:19 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO : Improving the Review/Editorial Process
In-Reply-To: <mailman.269.1216153480.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
References: <mailman.269.1216153480.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g5j6ab$2jsi$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

Eric H. Jung wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: "Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla" <mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com>
> 
> 
>> Thank you for hijacking my idea :-)
> 
> Will you be at the 2008 Firefox Summit?


->  http://www.multizilla.org/weblog/weblog.php  ;)

From axel at pike.org  Tue Jul 15 15:09:54 2008
From: axel at pike.org (Axel Hecht)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:09:54 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] pop ups on mozdev.org pages
Message-ID: <g5j73t$2mgq$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

Hi,

I just ran across http://padma.mozdev.org/, which has pop up adds in 
various forms.

Sounds kinda un-good to me, do we have a policy for stuff like that?

Axel

From davidwboswell at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 15 15:29:40 2008
From: davidwboswell at yahoo.com (David Boswell)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:29:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Project_owners] pop ups on mozdev.org pages
In-Reply-To: <g5j73t$2mgq$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <200256.53883.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

> I just ran across http://padma.mozdev.org/, which has pop
> up adds in various forms.
> 
> Sounds kinda un-good to me, do we have a policy for stuff
> like that?

To date we've allowed ads on project sites as long as they don't conflict with our Terms of Use (for example, by advertising something considered to be obscene).  I'm certainly not opposed to ads, but we can post some guidelines for project owners to follow if that would be helpful (I believe this has come up before and I know the mozdev board has talked about this at one time).

David

From philip at aleytys.pc.my  Tue Jul 15 19:11:33 2008
From: philip at aleytys.pc.my (Philip Chee)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:11:33 +0800
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO : Improving the Review/Editorial Process
In-Reply-To: <g5j6ab$2jsi$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <mailman.269.1216153480.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g5j6ab$2jsi$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g5jlcn$10d9$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 23:54:19 +0200, Michael Vincent van Rantwijk,
MultiZilla wrote:

> Eric H. Jung wrote:
>> Will you be at the 2008 Firefox Summit?

I don't think Michael even knows what Firefox is :)

> ->  http://www.multizilla.org/weblog/weblog.php  ;)

Err, Shirley, http://multizilla.mozdev.org/weblog/weblog.php

Phil

-- 
Philip Chee <philip at aleytys.pc.my>, <philip.chee at gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
[ ]He's got a magnet!!!  Everybody BACKUP!!!!!!!!
* TagZilla 0.066.6


From philip.chee at gmail.com  Tue Jul 15 19:17:03 2008
From: philip.chee at gmail.com (Philip Chee)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:17:03 +0800
Subject: [Project_owners] pop ups on mozdev.org pages
In-Reply-To: <mailman.270.1216160989.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
References: <mailman.270.1216160989.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g5jln2$11g2$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:29:40 -0700 (PDT), David Boswell wrote:

>> I just ran across http://padma.mozdev.org/, which has pop up adds
>> in various forms.

So does http://newsfox.mozdev.org/ but since I know how to use a pop-up
blocker (what your browser doesn't have one?) it doesn't bother me.

> To date we've allowed ads on project sites as long as they don't
> conflict with our Terms of Use (for example, by advertising something
> considered to be obscene).  I'm certainly not opposed to ads, but we
> can post some guidelines for project owners to follow if that would
> be helpful (I believe this has come up before and I know the mozdev
> board has talked about this at one time).

While I don't like the popups, I can't object to destitute open source
project owners trying to supplement their income.

Phil

-- 
Philip Chee <philip at aleytys.pc.my>, <philip.chee at gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
[ ]It said "Insert disk #3", but only 2 will fit!
* TagZilla 0.066.6


From mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 15 20:05:28 2008
From: mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com (Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 05:05:28 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO : Improving the Review/Editorial Process
In-Reply-To: <g5jlcn$10d9$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <mailman.269.1216153480.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g5j6ab$2jsi$1@mozdev.mozdev.org> <g5jlcn$10d9$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g5joho$1c3b$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

Philip Chee wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 23:54:19 +0200, Michael Vincent van Rantwijk,
> MultiZilla wrote:
> 
>> Eric H. Jung wrote:
>>> Will you be at the 2008 Firefox Summit?
> 
> I don't think Michael even knows what Firefox is :)

;)

>> ->  http://www.multizilla.org/weblog/weblog.php  ;)
> 
> Err, Shirley, http://multizilla.mozdev.org/weblog/weblog.php
> 
> Phil

Oh bugger!  That's my very own private domain.  Thank you Phil.

From mycroft.mozdev.org at googlemail.com  Tue Jul 15 20:26:16 2008
From: mycroft.mozdev.org at googlemail.com (Mycroft Project)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 04:26:16 +0100
Subject: [Project_owners] pop ups on mozdev.org pages
In-Reply-To: <g5jln2$11g2$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <mailman.270.1216160989.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g5jln2$11g2$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <1dca1c040807152026x5ff4620bie107c0514015dd5@mail.gmail.com>

I'm guessing they come from the webstats4U page counter - seem to remember
something similar at Mycroft some time back.
But they're being blocked for me (or at least I'm not seeing anything)

Charles

2008/7/16 Philip Chee <philip.chee at gmail.com>:

> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:29:40 -0700 (PDT), David Boswell wrote:
>
> >> I just ran across http://padma.mozdev.org/, which has pop up adds
> >> in various forms.
>
> So does http://newsfox.mozdev.org/ but since I know how to use a pop-up
> blocker (what your browser doesn't have one?) it doesn't bother me.
>
> > To date we've allowed ads on project sites as long as they don't
> > conflict with our Terms of Use (for example, by advertising something
> > considered to be obscene).  I'm certainly not opposed to ads, but we
> > can post some guidelines for project owners to follow if that would
> > be helpful (I believe this has come up before and I know the mozdev
> > board has talked about this at one time).
>
> While I don't like the popups, I can't object to destitute open source
> project owners trying to supplement their income.
>
> Phil
>
> --
> Philip Chee <philip at aleytys.pc.my>, <philip.chee at gmail.com>
> http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
> Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
> oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
> [ ]It said "Insert disk #3", but only 2 will fit!
> * TagZilla 0.066.6
>
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>



-- 
Charles Caygill
Mycroft Project Owner
http://mycroft.mozdev.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080716/f9c3fee6/attachment.html>

From axel at pike.org  Wed Jul 16 00:20:35 2008
From: axel at pike.org (Axel Hecht)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:20:35 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] pop ups on mozdev.org pages
In-Reply-To: <mailman.271.1216178788.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
References: <mailman.270.1216160989.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>	<g5jln2$11g2$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<mailman.271.1216178788.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g5k7ce$2lje$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

What I found really annoying is that they showed a popup on clicking on 
the link to amo. This time it hit me when clicking on the members tab. 
That one defeats at least the built in blocker. Ugh :-/

Axel

Mycroft Project wrote:
> I'm guessing they come from the webstats4U page counter - seem to 
> remember something similar at Mycroft some time back.
> But they're being blocked for me (or at least I'm not seeing anything)
> 
> Charles
> 
> 2008/7/16 Philip Chee <philip.chee at gmail.com 
> <mailto:philip.chee at gmail.com>>:
> 
>     On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:29:40 -0700 (PDT), David Boswell wrote:
> 
>      >> I just ran across http://padma.mozdev.org/, which has pop up adds
>      >> in various forms.
> 
>     So does http://newsfox.mozdev.org/ but since I know how to use a pop-up
>     blocker (what your browser doesn't have one?) it doesn't bother me.
> 
>      > To date we've allowed ads on project sites as long as they don't
>      > conflict with our Terms of Use (for example, by advertising something
>      > considered to be obscene).  I'm certainly not opposed to ads, but we
>      > can post some guidelines for project owners to follow if that would
>      > be helpful (I believe this has come up before and I know the mozdev
>      > board has talked about this at one time).
> 
>     While I don't like the popups, I can't object to destitute open source
>     project owners trying to supplement their income.
> 
>     Phil
> 
>     --
>     Philip Chee <philip at aleytys.pc.my <mailto:philip at aleytys.pc.my>>,
>     <philip.chee at gmail.com <mailto:philip.chee at gmail.com>>
>     http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
>     Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
>     oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
>     [ ]It said "Insert disk #3", but only 2 will fit!
>     * TagZilla 0.066.6
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Project_owners mailing list
>     Project_owners at mozdev.org <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>
>     https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Charles Caygill
> Mycroft Project Owner
> http://mycroft.mozdev.org

From andrey at gromyko.name  Wed Jul 16 01:19:31 2008
From: andrey at gromyko.name (Andrey Gromyko)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:19:31 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] pop ups on mozdev.org pages
In-Reply-To: <1dca1c040807152026x5ff4620bie107c0514015dd5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.270.1216160989.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g5jln2$11g2$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<1dca1c040807152026x5ff4620bie107c0514015dd5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20080716101931.a5873761.andrey@gromyko.name>

Yep, I suppose so. There were no pop-ups before :(
Even more sadness since they don't supplement our income :)

We'll check out that for NewsFox.

Philip, thanks for pointing it!

Andrey

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 04:26:16 +0100
"Mycroft Project" <mycroft.mozdev.org at googlemail.com> wrote:

> I'm guessing they come from the webstats4U page counter - seem to
> remember something similar at Mycroft some time back.
> But they're being blocked for me (or at least I'm not seeing anything)
> 
> Charles
> 
> 2008/7/16 Philip Chee <philip.chee at gmail.com>:
> 
> > On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:29:40 -0700 (PDT), David Boswell wrote:
> >
> > >> I just ran across http://padma.mozdev.org/, which has pop up adds
> > >> in various forms.
> >
> > So does http://newsfox.mozdev.org/ but since I know how to use a
> > pop-up blocker (what your browser doesn't have one?) it doesn't
> > bother me.
> >
> > > To date we've allowed ads on project sites as long as they don't
> > > conflict with our Terms of Use (for example, by advertising
> > > something considered to be obscene).  I'm certainly not opposed
> > > to ads, but we can post some guidelines for project owners to
> > > follow if that would be helpful (I believe this has come up
> > > before and I know the mozdev board has talked about this at one
> > > time).
> >
> > While I don't like the popups, I can't object to destitute open
> > source project owners trying to supplement their income.
> >
> > Phil
> >
> > --
> > Philip Chee <philip at aleytys.pc.my>, <philip.chee at gmail.com>
> > http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
> > Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the
> > thief, oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
> > [ ]It said "Insert disk #3", but only 2 will fit!
> > * TagZilla 0.066.6
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Project_owners mailing list
> > Project_owners at mozdev.org
> > https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Charles Caygill
> Mycroft Project Owner
> http://mycroft.mozdev.org
> 

From brian at mozdev.org  Wed Jul 16 08:11:24 2008
From: brian at mozdev.org (Brian King)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:11:24 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] Initialising an extension once per session
In-Reply-To: <487CE7C4.5080107@mozilla.org>
References: <265782.33009.qm@web30304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<487CE7C4.5080107@mozilla.org>
Message-ID: <487E0F9C.2030603@mozdev.org>

Myk Melez wrote:
> If you want to wait until session store is finished restoring windows 
> and tabs, you can observe the sessionstore-windows-restored 
> notification.  A variety of other startup notifications are also available:
> 
> http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Observer_Notifications#Application_startup 

Ah, this looks like something I could use. Thanks everyone for the 
suggestions.

- Brian

From brian at mozdev.org  Wed Jul 16 13:16:29 2008
From: brian at mozdev.org (Brian King)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:16:29 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO : Improving the Review/Editorial Process
In-Reply-To: <g5iuvh$1sad$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <mailman.263.1216139871.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g5iuvh$1sad$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <487E571D.2030506@mozdev.org>

Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla wrote:
> Thank you for hijacking my idea :-)
> 
> This is all I have to say about it: 
> news://news.mozdev.org:119/g5g9nt$236v$1 at mozdev.mozdev.org

Michael, I had no idea that I was "hijacking" your idea. My proposal is 
to gather ideas like the ones you have in the post you cite, and get 
that proposal in front of the right people. I don't see you proposing 
this. *Please* do not carry on here with that discussion. Mail me 
privately if you have a gripe and lets try and sort it out.

Looks like this thread is going exactly the way I didn't want it to go.

- Brian

From eric.jung at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 16 14:51:22 2008
From: eric.jung at yahoo.com (Eric H. Jung)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:51:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Project_owners] pop ups on mozdev.org pages
Message-ID: <326129.27828.qm@web30301.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Should mozdev consider implementing its own page counters so POs don't have to resort to third-party tools like webstats4U?




----- Original Message ----
> From: Andrey Gromyko <andrey at gromyko.name>
> To: Mozdev Project Owners List <project_owners at mozdev.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 4:19:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [Project_owners] pop ups on mozdev.org pages
> 
> Yep, I suppose so. There were no pop-ups before :(
> Even more sadness since they don't supplement our income :)
> 
> We'll check out that for NewsFox.
> 
> Philip, thanks for pointing it!
> 
> Andrey
> 
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 04:26:16 +0100
> "Mycroft Project" wrote:
> 
> > I'm guessing they come from the webstats4U page counter - seem to
> > remember something similar at Mycroft some time back.
> > But they're being blocked for me (or at least I'm not seeing anything)
> > 
> > Charles
> > 
> > 2008/7/16 Philip Chee :
> > 
> > > On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:29:40 -0700 (PDT), David Boswell wrote:
> > >
> > > >> I just ran across http://padma.mozdev.org/, which has pop up adds
> > > >> in various forms.
> > >
> > > So does http://newsfox.mozdev.org/ but since I know how to use a
> > > pop-up blocker (what your browser doesn't have one?) it doesn't
> > > bother me.
> > >
> > > > To date we've allowed ads on project sites as long as they don't
> > > > conflict with our Terms of Use (for example, by advertising
> > > > something considered to be obscene).  I'm certainly not opposed
> > > > to ads, but we can post some guidelines for project owners to
> > > > follow if that would be helpful (I believe this has come up
> > > > before and I know the mozdev board has talked about this at one
> > > > time).
> > >
> > > While I don't like the popups, I can't object to destitute open
> > > source project owners trying to supplement their income.
> > >
> > > Phil
> > >
> > > --
> > > Philip Chee , 
> > > http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
> > > Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the
> > > thief, oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
> > > [ ]It said "Insert disk #3", but only 2 will fit!
> > > * TagZilla 0.066.6
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Project_owners mailing list
> > > Project_owners at mozdev.org
> > > https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Charles Caygill
> > Mycroft Project Owner
> > http://mycroft.mozdev.org
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners



      

From mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 17 00:03:49 2008
From: mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com (Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:03:49 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO : Improving the Review/Editorial Process
In-Reply-To: <mailman.275.1216239414.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
References: <mailman.263.1216139871.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>	<g5iuvh$1sad$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<mailman.275.1216239414.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g5mqsl$1ntm$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

Brian King wrote:
> Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla wrote:
>> Thank you for hijacking my idea :-)
>>
>> This is all I have to say about it: 
>> news://news.mozdev.org:119/g5g9nt$236v$1 at mozdev.mozdev.org
> 
> Michael, I had no idea that I was "hijacking" your idea. My proposal is 
> to gather ideas like the ones you have in the post you cite, and get 
> that proposal in front of the right people. I don't see you proposing 
> this. *Please* do not carry on here with that discussion. Mail me 
> privately if you have a gripe and lets try and sort it out.
> 
> Looks like this thread is going exactly the way I didn't want it to go.
> 
> - Brian

Wow!  What a ridiculous statement. Seems like time to unsubscribe.

Goodbye folks!

From o.e.ekker at gmail.com  Thu Jul 17 03:52:59 2008
From: o.e.ekker at gmail.com (Onno Ekker)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:52:59 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO : Improving the Review/Editorial Process
In-Reply-To: <487CD254.5080809@mozdev.org>
References: <487CD254.5080809@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <767de81b0807170352l2b6c1e64w3c1ba3e6d02d5f79@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Brian King <brian at mozdev.org> wrote:

> There has been a lot of talk about this in recent threads, so I have a
> proposal.
>
> The upcoming Firefox Summit has a few AMO talks on the schedule:
>
> http://wiki.mozilla.org/Summit2008/Sessions/Schedule
>
> One of them is titled just AMO: Editorial Process, which I believe will be
> a banging of heads to come up with ways to improve things. This is one of
> the high priorities at AMO.
>
> So what I would like you to do is reply to this post with your ideas on how
> to improve the process. I will then compile a list and present it at the
> summit. I might also blog about it. Even if some of the ideas are followed
> through on, that would be a step in the right direction.
>
> Put your ideas into 3 separate categories:
>
> 1) General : What the pain points are for you, and a proposal on how to
> fix/improve. Let's focus on the review process, but site bugs can be
> included.
> 2) Feature Requests : Things you would like to see (or removed) on the
> site.
> 3) Mozdev ties : Ideas on how Mozdev could integrate with AMO.
>
> Guidelines:
>
> - Be constructive!
> - Keep each entry short. One liners where possible.
> - Cite bugs if they exist.
> - Do not follow-up on any ideas proposed, especially to knock it down. The
> exception might be to clarify a broken link or cite a bug. You can open a
> new thread if you like to start a discussion on a particular feature. Let's
> work on the assumption that all ideas are good ideas for now.
>
> Thanks,
> - Brian
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>

1) General:
- AMO (and the rest of mozilla) is too much focused on Firefox. I'm afraid
this won't get any better with Thunderbird going to mozillamessaging.com.
(bugs 308193, 376350, 424933, 431707)

2) Feature Requests:
- Make the pending queue publicly accessible, or show stats about depth,
average time, etc... (bug 427104)
- Add documentation about Trusted extensions. What are they? How does an
extension become trusted?

3) Mozdev ties:
- Not specific for review process, but MDC should link to mozdev page (now
it links to project owners list) (see also bug 418179)

HTH

Onno
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080717/bb3fdb2a/attachment.html>

From o.e.ekker at gmail.com  Thu Jul 17 04:02:51 2008
From: o.e.ekker at gmail.com (Onno Ekker)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:02:51 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO vs. mozdev was: Awaiting extension upgrade
	approval
In-Reply-To: <360642.7816.qm@web30307.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <360642.7816.qm@web30307.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <767de81b0807170402y37af659co5a59c935781d4f35@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Eric H. Jung <eric.jung at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Onno Ekker <o.e.ekker at gmail.com>
>
> >A better bet might be to become a trusted add-on. I don't think the
> concept of trusted add-ons is any safe, but since amo uses it, it is
> probably your best bet to prevent future
> >update problems. Unfortunately there isn't too much info about trusted
> add-ons either, but I can imagine becoming trusted involves a lot of hanging
> around and begging on irc ;-)
>
> One of my add-ons is trusted. I neither begged nor even asked for it to be
> trusted. Indeed, I didn't even know what a "trusted addon" was. One day, I
> went to upload a new version of this addon to AMO and was presented with the
> option to publish the new version to the sandbox or to the public. It'd
> become trusted. I still don't really know how it happened :)
>

Now that is very strange...
Why do they trust an add-on and not a user?
They trust you to not put malware, remote java, memory leaks, etc in one
add-on, but think you might put it in one of your other add-ons?
Or do the other add-ons have co-authors they don't trust?
And then you were lucky enough to see it in time, otherwise you might have
got stuck with an extension in the sandbox, due to bug 432121 (filed by you
:-))

Onno
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080717/c9227f42/attachment.html>

From johnrw at gmail.com  Thu Jul 17 04:51:43 2008
From: johnrw at gmail.com (John Woods)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 07:51:43 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO : Improving the Review/Editorial Process
In-Reply-To: <767de81b0807170352l2b6c1e64w3c1ba3e6d02d5f79@mail.gmail.com>
References: <487CD254.5080809@mozdev.org>
	<767de81b0807170352l2b6c1e64w3c1ba3e6d02d5f79@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f7910e810807170451j7beaea17wdade293bd54b8c8e@mail.gmail.com>

I would like to hear their arguments for keeping extensions in the sandbox
indefinitely... ie no guaranteed, fixed time after an extension such as mine
was submitted "for Editor Review" and it staying in that state indefinitely.

Like I said earlier... that website should have a fixed period of time to Review
and if no action is taken in that period of time... the extension submission
just goes public, except restricted ones like porn search stuff that never
make public and aren't intended to be. A timeout.

That allows everything else to stay the same... favorite extensions can be
pushed through faster... but everyone else can fire and forget... without
feeling the need to go on irc and ask questions about it nobody there will
discuss.

They do not have the right to just leave things people have put real work
into... in http://purgatory.addons.mozilla.org

John

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:52 AM, Onno Ekker <o.e.ekker at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Brian King <brian at mozdev.org> wrote:
>>
>> There has been a lot of talk about this in recent threads, so I have a
>> proposal.
>>
>> The upcoming Firefox Summit has a few AMO talks on the schedule:
>>
>> http://wiki.mozilla.org/Summit2008/Sessions/Schedule
>>
>> One of them is titled just AMO: Editorial Process, which I believe will be
>> a banging of heads to come up with ways to improve things. This is one of
>> the high priorities at AMO.
>>
>> So what I would like you to do is reply to this post with your ideas on
>> how to improve the process. I will then compile a list and present it at the
>> summit. I might also blog about it. Even if some of the ideas are followed
>> through on, that would be a step in the right direction.
>>
>> Put your ideas into 3 separate categories:
>>
>> 1) General : What the pain points are for you, and a proposal on how to
>> fix/improve. Let's focus on the review process, but site bugs can be
>> included.
>> 2) Feature Requests : Things you would like to see (or removed) on the
>> site.
>> 3) Mozdev ties : Ideas on how Mozdev could integrate with AMO.
>>
>> Guidelines:
>>
>> - Be constructive!
>> - Keep each entry short. One liners where possible.
>> - Cite bugs if they exist.
>> - Do not follow-up on any ideas proposed, especially to knock it down. The
>> exception might be to clarify a broken link or cite a bug. You can open a
>> new thread if you like to start a discussion on a particular feature. Let's
>> work on the assumption that all ideas are good ideas for now.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> - Brian
>> _______________________________________________
>> Project_owners mailing list
>> Project_owners at mozdev.org
>> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
> 1) General:
> - AMO (and the rest of mozilla) is too much focused on Firefox. I'm afraid
> this won't get any better with Thunderbird going to mozillamessaging.com.
> (bugs 308193, 376350, 424933, 431707)
>
> 2) Feature Requests:
> - Make the pending queue publicly accessible, or show stats about depth,
> average time, etc... (bug 427104)
> - Add documentation about Trusted extensions. What are they? How does an
> extension become trusted?
>
> 3) Mozdev ties:
> - Not specific for review process, but MDC should link to mozdev page (now
> it links to project owners list) (see also bug 418179)
>
> HTH
>
> Onno
>
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
>

From silfreed at silfreed.net  Thu Jul 17 07:39:37 2008
From: silfreed at silfreed.net (Douglas E. Warner)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:39:37 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] pop ups on mozdev.org pages
In-Reply-To: <326129.27828.qm@web30301.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <326129.27828.qm@web30301.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200807171039.42242.silfreed@silfreed.net>

On Wednesday 16 July 2008 17:51:22 Eric H. Jung wrote:
> Should mozdev consider implementing its own page counters so POs don't have
> to resort to third-party tools like webstats4U?

This is probably bug#124 : "Support for project-specific log analysis"
https://www.mozdev.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=124

-Doug

-- 
Douglas E. Warner    <silfreed at silfreed.net>    Site Developer
Mozdev.org           http://www.mozdev.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080717/9fb63da2/attachment.bin>

From philip.chee at gmail.com  Thu Jul 17 08:49:09 2008
From: philip.chee at gmail.com (Philip Chee)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:49:09 +0800
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO vs. mozdev was: Awaiting extension upgrade
	approval
In-Reply-To: <mailman.279.1216292581.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
References: <360642.7816.qm@web30307.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<mailman.279.1216292581.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g5nplm$219g$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:02:51 +0200, Onno Ekker wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Eric H. Jung <eric.jung at yahoo.com> wrote:

>> One of my add-ons is trusted. I neither begged nor even asked for it to be
>> trusted. Indeed, I didn't even know what a "trusted addon" was. One day, I
>> went to upload a new version of this addon to AMO and was presented with the
>> option to publish the new version to the sandbox or to the public. It'd
>> become trusted. I still don't really know how it happened :)

> Now that is very strange...
> Why do they trust an add-on and not a user?
> They trust you to not put malware, remote java, memory leaks, etc in one
> add-on, but think you might put it in one of your other add-ons?
> Or do the other add-ons have co-authors they don't trust?
> And then you were lucky enough to see it in time, otherwise you might have
> got stuck with an extension in the sandbox, due to bug 432121 (filed by you
> :-))

I think one of the reasons Flasblock is trusted is that it has been on
AMO since v1 (or rather even before they started giving AMO version
numbers) and was sort of grandfathered in. And has (probably) nothing to
do with one of my co-authors being a MoCo employee.

Phil

-- 
Philip Chee <philip at aleytys.pc.my>, <philip.chee at gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
[ ]Everyone hates me because I'm paranoid.
* TagZilla 0.066.6


From johnm555 at gmail.com  Thu Jul 17 10:53:19 2008
From: johnm555 at gmail.com (John Marshall)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:53:19 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO : Improving the Review/Editorial Process
In-Reply-To: <f7910e810807170451j7beaea17wdade293bd54b8c8e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <487CD254.5080809@mozdev.org>
	<767de81b0807170352l2b6c1e64w3c1ba3e6d02d5f79@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7910e810807170451j7beaea17wdade293bd54b8c8e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4e7ecbc40807171053j5e6f65c0gf3cda9480996a133@mail.gmail.com>

Pushing them public after a certain period of time without review would
completely defeat the point of the sandbox and review process. A better
solution is just to have more reviewers. I don't know what you mean by
favorite extensions, but popular extensions are (almost) always pushed
through quickly.

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:51 AM, John Woods <johnrw at gmail.com> wrote:

> I would like to hear their arguments for keeping extensions in the sandbox
> indefinitely... ie no guaranteed, fixed time after an extension such as
> mine
> was submitted "for Editor Review" and it staying in that state
> indefinitely.
>
> Like I said earlier... that website should have a fixed period of time to
> Review
> and if no action is taken in that period of time... the extension
> submission
> just goes public, except restricted ones like porn search stuff that never
> make public and aren't intended to be. A timeout.
>
> That allows everything else to stay the same... favorite extensions can be
> pushed through faster... but everyone else can fire and forget... without
> feeling the need to go on irc and ask questions about it nobody there will
> discuss.
>
> They do not have the right to just leave things people have put real work
> into... in http://purgatory.addons.mozilla.org
>
> John
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:52 AM, Onno Ekker <o.e.ekker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Brian King <brian at mozdev.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> There has been a lot of talk about this in recent threads, so I have a
> >> proposal.
> >>
> >> The upcoming Firefox Summit has a few AMO talks on the schedule:
> >>
> >> http://wiki.mozilla.org/Summit2008/Sessions/Schedule
> >>
> >> One of them is titled just AMO: Editorial Process, which I believe will
> be
> >> a banging of heads to come up with ways to improve things. This is one
> of
> >> the high priorities at AMO.
> >>
> >> So what I would like you to do is reply to this post with your ideas on
> >> how to improve the process. I will then compile a list and present it at
> the
> >> summit. I might also blog about it. Even if some of the ideas are
> followed
> >> through on, that would be a step in the right direction.
> >>
> >> Put your ideas into 3 separate categories:
> >>
> >> 1) General : What the pain points are for you, and a proposal on how to
> >> fix/improve. Let's focus on the review process, but site bugs can be
> >> included.
> >> 2) Feature Requests : Things you would like to see (or removed) on the
> >> site.
> >> 3) Mozdev ties : Ideas on how Mozdev could integrate with AMO.
> >>
> >> Guidelines:
> >>
> >> - Be constructive!
> >> - Keep each entry short. One liners where possible.
> >> - Cite bugs if they exist.
> >> - Do not follow-up on any ideas proposed, especially to knock it down.
> The
> >> exception might be to clarify a broken link or cite a bug. You can open
> a
> >> new thread if you like to start a discussion on a particular feature.
> Let's
> >> work on the assumption that all ideas are good ideas for now.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> - Brian
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Project_owners mailing list
> >> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> >> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
> >
> > 1) General:
> > - AMO (and the rest of mozilla) is too much focused on Firefox. I'm
> afraid
> > this won't get any better with Thunderbird going to mozillamessaging.com
> .
> > (bugs 308193, 376350, 424933, 431707)
> >
> > 2) Feature Requests:
> > - Make the pending queue publicly accessible, or show stats about depth,
> > average time, etc... (bug 427104)
> > - Add documentation about Trusted extensions. What are they? How does an
> > extension become trusted?
> >
> > 3) Mozdev ties:
> > - Not specific for review process, but MDC should link to mozdev page
> (now
> > it links to project owners list) (see also bug 418179)
> >
> > HTH
> >
> > Onno
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Project_owners mailing list
> > Project_owners at mozdev.org
> > https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080717/f39822d0/attachment.html>

From johnrw at gmail.com  Thu Jul 17 12:49:37 2008
From: johnrw at gmail.com (John Woods)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:49:37 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO : Improving the Review/Editorial Process
In-Reply-To: <4e7ecbc40807171053j5e6f65c0gf3cda9480996a133@mail.gmail.com>
References: <487CD254.5080809@mozdev.org>
	<767de81b0807170352l2b6c1e64w3c1ba3e6d02d5f79@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7910e810807170451j7beaea17wdade293bd54b8c8e@mail.gmail.com>
	<4e7ecbc40807171053j5e6f65c0gf3cda9480996a133@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f7910e810807171249i26ddc572i93a94d19feda4e23@mail.gmail.com>

Then get rid of the sandbox. It doesn't work For Everbody.
As the document offered by fligtar shows... you have enough reviewers.
It has already proven that it does not work for EVERYBODY.

Pushing them public after a certain period of time does NOT Completely
remove the point of sandbox. How long do you think amo is entitled to prevent
distribution of a distributable extension? Forever?

What do you think is reasonable?

It is clear amo has bitten off more than it can handle.

2 weeks gives amo enough time to locate "bad" nefarious extensions and
prevent it from going to the masses. As I said earlier... amo can publish
a list of "going public soon, so you better find time to review these!"
daily/weekly whatever. A list like that would then enable some tracking
of reviewer performance issues which is non existant, and workload.

Work with what you have, or scrap it.


On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:53 PM, John Marshall <johnm555 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Pushing them public after a certain period of time without review would
> completely defeat the point of the sandbox and review process. A better
> solution is just to have more reviewers. I don't know what you mean by
> favorite extensions, but popular extensions are (almost) always pushed
> through quickly.
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:51 AM, John Woods <johnrw at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I would like to hear their arguments for keeping extensions in the sandbox
>> indefinitely... ie no guaranteed, fixed time after an extension such as
>> mine
>> was submitted "for Editor Review" and it staying in that state
>> indefinitely.
>>
>> Like I said earlier... that website should have a fixed period of time to
>> Review
>> and if no action is taken in that period of time... the extension
>> submission
>> just goes public, except restricted ones like porn search stuff that never
>> make public and aren't intended to be. A timeout.
>>
>> That allows everything else to stay the same... favorite extensions can be
>> pushed through faster... but everyone else can fire and forget... without
>> feeling the need to go on irc and ask questions about it nobody there will
>> discuss.
>>
>> They do not have the right to just leave things people have put real work
>> into... in http://purgatory.addons.mozilla.org
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:52 AM, Onno Ekker <o.e.ekker at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Brian King <brian at mozdev.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> There has been a lot of talk about this in recent threads, so I have a
>> >> proposal.
>> >>
>> >> The upcoming Firefox Summit has a few AMO talks on the schedule:
>> >>
>> >> http://wiki.mozilla.org/Summit2008/Sessions/Schedule
>> >>
>> >> One of them is titled just AMO: Editorial Process, which I believe will
>> >> be
>> >> a banging of heads to come up with ways to improve things. This is one
>> >> of
>> >> the high priorities at AMO.
>> >>
>> >> So what I would like you to do is reply to this post with your ideas on
>> >> how to improve the process. I will then compile a list and present it
>> >> at the
>> >> summit. I might also blog about it. Even if some of the ideas are
>> >> followed
>> >> through on, that would be a step in the right direction.
>> >>
>> >> Put your ideas into 3 separate categories:
>> >>
>> >> 1) General : What the pain points are for you, and a proposal on how to
>> >> fix/improve. Let's focus on the review process, but site bugs can be
>> >> included.
>> >> 2) Feature Requests : Things you would like to see (or removed) on the
>> >> site.
>> >> 3) Mozdev ties : Ideas on how Mozdev could integrate with AMO.
>> >>
>> >> Guidelines:
>> >>
>> >> - Be constructive!
>> >> - Keep each entry short. One liners where possible.
>> >> - Cite bugs if they exist.
>> >> - Do not follow-up on any ideas proposed, especially to knock it down.
>> >> The
>> >> exception might be to clarify a broken link or cite a bug. You can open
>> >> a
>> >> new thread if you like to start a discussion on a particular feature.
>> >> Let's
>> >> work on the assumption that all ideas are good ideas for now.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> - Brian
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Project_owners mailing list
>> >> Project_owners at mozdev.org
>> >> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>> >
>> > 1) General:
>> > - AMO (and the rest of mozilla) is too much focused on Firefox. I'm
>> > afraid
>> > this won't get any better with Thunderbird going to
>> > mozillamessaging.com.
>> > (bugs 308193, 376350, 424933, 431707)
>> >
>> > 2) Feature Requests:
>> > - Make the pending queue publicly accessible, or show stats about depth,
>> > average time, etc... (bug 427104)
>> > - Add documentation about Trusted extensions. What are they? How does an
>> > extension become trusted?
>> >
>> > 3) Mozdev ties:
>> > - Not specific for review process, but MDC should link to mozdev page
>> > (now
>> > it links to project owners list) (see also bug 418179)
>> >
>> > HTH
>> >
>> > Onno
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Project_owners mailing list
>> > Project_owners at mozdev.org
>> > https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Project_owners mailing list
>> Project_owners at mozdev.org
>> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
>

From myk at mozilla.org  Thu Jul 17 13:19:51 2008
From: myk at mozilla.org (Myk Melez)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:19:51 -0700
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO : Improving the Review/Editorial Process
In-Reply-To: <4e7ecbc40807171053j5e6f65c0gf3cda9480996a133@mail.gmail.com>
References: <487CD254.5080809@mozdev.org>	<767de81b0807170352l2b6c1e64w3c1ba3e6d02d5f79@mail.gmail.com>	<f7910e810807170451j7beaea17wdade293bd54b8c8e@mail.gmail.com>
	<4e7ecbc40807171053j5e6f65c0gf3cda9480996a133@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <487FA967.4060209@mozilla.org>

John Marshall wrote:
> Pushing them public after a certain period of time without review 
> would completely defeat the point of the sandbox and review process. A 
> better solution is just to have more reviewers. I don't know what you 
> mean by favorite extensions, but popular extensions are (almost) 
> always pushed through quickly.
Having more reviewers is only a better solution if it's possible and 
means more extensions get reviewed.  And given that folks have been 
pining for more reviewers for years, I don't think it's possible, at 
least not under the current system, in which there is little incentive 
and significant disincentive to review.

And I'm not sure it even would even mean more extensions would get 
reviewed.  Reviewers focus their attention on the extensions that 
interest them.  And that bias, which is perfectly reasonable (it is 
"scratching one's own itch" in true open source fashion), means that 
extensions with a limited audience (or even a large one that doesn't 
happen to include the kinds of people who self-select to be reviewers) 
would get less review even from a larger body of reviewers.

I don't agree with John Woods that we should auto-publicize extensions 
that languish in the sandbox, but I do think we should recognize that 
review, as currently constituted, does not accomplish the goal of 
expediently publicizing good extensions (nor, for that matter, filtering 
bad ones), and AMO should be looking for ways to accomplish that goal 
outside of the current review system.

-myk


From KaiRo at KaiRo.at  Thu Jul 17 13:44:53 2008
From: KaiRo at KaiRo.at (Robert Kaiser)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:44:53 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO : Improving the Review/Editorial Process
In-Reply-To: <487FA967.4060209@mozilla.org>
References: <487CD254.5080809@mozdev.org>	<767de81b0807170352l2b6c1e64w3c1ba3e6d02d5f79@mail.gmail.com>	<f7910e810807170451j7beaea17wdade293bd54b8c8e@mail.gmail.com>	<4e7ecbc40807171053j5e6f65c0gf3cda9480996a133@mail.gmail.com>
	<487FA967.4060209@mozilla.org>
Message-ID: <487FAF45.7050609@KaiRo.at>

Hi,

> I don't agree with John Woods that we should auto-publicize extensions
> that languish in the sandbox, but I do think we should recognize that
> review, as currently constituted, does not accomplish the goal of
> expediently publicizing good extensions (nor, for that matter, filtering
> bad ones), and AMO should be looking for ways to accomplish that goal
> outside of the current review system.

I fully agree here. Maybe we can be more aggressive on making a number 
of developers "trusted", meaning they can circumvent the sandbox, if 
they get enough reviews that are positive enough or have provided 
well-reviewed add-ons for a certain time, kept track with current 
releases of the respective products, etc.
This might reduce the number of add-ons that even need review while 
still keeping a level of security and trust on AMO.
We should not play lightheartedly with trust, but I think there are 
certain criteria we can derive such trust from, and a huge number of the 
regulars in here for example would surely be trustworthy enough to get 
their stuff public without peer review.
We probably should concentrate the sandbox and reviews more on those in 
the add-ons community that are not that experienced and not that 
well-known instead of burdening those people with it of which we 
actually know that they are trying to make the best and most trustworthy 
add-ons they are able to produce, and have shown that for quite some time.

Robert Kaiser

From sjwaters at shaw.ca  Thu Jul 17 14:41:59 2008
From: sjwaters at shaw.ca (Samantha Waters)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:41:59 -0600
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO : Improving the Review/Editorial Process
In-Reply-To: <f7910e810807171249i26ddc572i93a94d19feda4e23@mail.gmail.com>
References: <487CD254.5080809@mozdev.org>
	<767de81b0807170352l2b6c1e64w3c1ba3e6d02d5f79@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7910e810807170451j7beaea17wdade293bd54b8c8e@mail.gmail.com>
	<4e7ecbc40807171053j5e6f65c0gf3cda9480996a133@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7910e810807171249i26ddc572i93a94d19feda4e23@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f324bdd81af49.487f6847@shaw.ca>

Sorry to interject with a slightly OT question, but is it documented
anywhere how many reviews are "enough" reviews for an extension to be
considered for pushing public?



I recently read that AMO Reviewing Guide wiki article (http://wiki.mozilla.org/Update:Editors/ReviewingGuide#Reviewing_Add-ons)
and
there is no definite number listed, just a mention that there should be
"a sufficient number of AMO comments". Quality of the reviews was also
not touched on, but I imagine
it plays a part?

Thanks for any info you can provide! My
extension has recently shown up on some Tools for Writers type lists,
and they invariably link to the sandboxed AMO page, not the publicly
downloadable version on mozdev (argh). If the AMO page continues to be
more visible, then I guess I should make more of an effort to get it
pushed public.


--Sam

----- Original Message -----
From: John Woods <johnrw at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, July 17, 2008 1:49 pm
Subject: Re: [Project_owners] AMO : Improving the Review/Editorial Process
To: Mozdev Project Owners List <project_owners at mozdev.org>

> Then get rid of the sandbox. It doesn't work For Everbody.
> As the document offered by fligtar shows... you have enough reviewers.
> It has already proven that it does not work for EVERYBODY.
> 
> Pushing them public after a certain period of time does NOT Completely
> remove the point of sandbox. How long do you think amo is 
> entitled to prevent
> distribution of a distributable extension? Forever?
> 
> What do you think is reasonable?
> 
> It is clear amo has bitten off more than it can handle.
> 
> 2 weeks gives amo enough time to locate "bad" nefarious 
> extensions and
> prevent it from going to the masses. As I said earlier... amo 
> can publish
> a list of "going public soon, so you better find time to review 
> these!"daily/weekly whatever. A list like that would then enable 
> some tracking
> of reviewer performance issues which is non existant, and workload.
> 
> Work with what you have, or scrap it.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:53 PM, John Marshall 
> <johnm555 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Pushing them public after a certain period of time without 
> review would
> > completely defeat the point of the sandbox and review process. 
> A better
> > solution is just to have more reviewers. I don't know what you 
> mean by
> > favorite extensions, but popular extensions are (almost) 
> always pushed
> > through quickly.
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:51 AM, John Woods 
> <johnrw at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I would like to hear their arguments for keeping extensions 
> in the sandbox
> >> indefinitely... ie no guaranteed, fixed time after an 
> extension such as
> >> mine
> >> was submitted "for Editor Review" and it staying in that state
> >> indefinitely.
> >>
> >> Like I said earlier... that website should have a fixed 
> period of time to
> >> Review
> >> and if no action is taken in that period of time... the extension
> >> submission
> >> just goes public, except restricted ones like porn search 
> stuff that never
> >> make public and aren't intended to be. A timeout.
> >>
> >> That allows everything else to stay the same... favorite 
> extensions can be
> >> pushed through faster... but everyone else can fire and 
> forget... without
> >> feeling the need to go on irc and ask questions about it 
> nobody there will
> >> discuss.
> >>
> >> They do not have the right to just leave things people have 
> put real work
> >> into... in http://purgatory.addons.mozilla.org
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:52 AM, Onno Ekker 
> <o.e.ekker at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Brian King 
> <brian at mozdev.org> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> There has been a lot of talk about this in recent threads, 
> so I have a
> >> >> proposal.
> >> >>
> >> >> The upcoming Firefox Summit has a few AMO talks on the schedule:
> >> >>
> >> >> http://wiki.mozilla.org/Summit2008/Sessions/Schedule
> >> >>
> >> >> One of them is titled just AMO: Editorial Process, which I 
> believe will
> >> >> be
> >> >> a banging of heads to come up with ways to improve things. 
> This is one
> >> >> of
> >> >> the high priorities at AMO.
> >> >>
> >> >> So what I would like you to do is reply to this post with 
> your ideas on
> >> >> how to improve the process. I will then compile a list and 
> present it
> >> >> at the
> >> >> summit. I might also blog about it. Even if some of the 
> ideas are
> >> >> followed
> >> >> through on, that would be a step in the right direction.
> >> >>
> >> >> Put your ideas into 3 separate categories:
> >> >>
> >> >> 1) General : What the pain points are for you, and a 
> proposal on how to
> >> >> fix/improve. Let's focus on the review process, but site 
> bugs can be
> >> >> included.
> >> >> 2) Feature Requests : Things you would like to see (or 
> removed) on the
> >> >> site.
> >> >> 3) Mozdev ties : Ideas on how Mozdev could integrate with AMO.
> >> >>
> >> >> Guidelines:
> >> >>
> >> >> - Be constructive!
> >> >> - Keep each entry short. One liners where possible.
> >> >> - Cite bugs if they exist.
> >> >> - Do not follow-up on any ideas proposed, especially to 
> knock it down.
> >> >> The
> >> >> exception might be to clarify a broken link or cite a bug. 
> You can open
> >> >> a
> >> >> new thread if you like to start a discussion on a 
> particular feature.
> >> >> Let's
> >> >> work on the assumption that all ideas are good ideas for now.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >> - Brian
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> Project_owners mailing list
> >> >> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> >> >> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
> >> >
> >> > 1) General:
> >> > - AMO (and the rest of mozilla) is too much focused on 
> Firefox. I'm
> >> > afraid
> >> > this won't get any better with Thunderbird going to
> >> > mozillamessaging.com.
> >> > (bugs 308193, 376350, 424933, 431707)
> >> >
> >> > 2) Feature Requests:
> >> > - Make the pending queue publicly accessible, or show stats 
> about depth,
> >> > average time, etc... (bug 427104)
> >> > - Add documentation about Trusted extensions. What are 
> they? How does an
> >> > extension become trusted?
> >> >
> >> > 3) Mozdev ties:
> >> > - Not specific for review process, but MDC should link to 
> mozdev page
> >> > (now
> >> > it links to project owners list) (see also bug 418179)
> >> >
> >> > HTH
> >> >
> >> > Onno
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Project_owners mailing list
> >> > Project_owners at mozdev.org
> >> > https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
> >> >
> >> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Project_owners mailing list
> >> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> >> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Project_owners mailing list
> > Project_owners at mozdev.org
> > https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080717/c865f587/attachment-0001.html>

From johnrw at gmail.com  Thu Jul 17 15:00:31 2008
From: johnrw at gmail.com (John Woods)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:00:31 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO : Improving the Review/Editorial Process
In-Reply-To: <487FAF45.7050609@KaiRo.at>
References: <487CD254.5080809@mozdev.org>
	<767de81b0807170352l2b6c1e64w3c1ba3e6d02d5f79@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7910e810807170451j7beaea17wdade293bd54b8c8e@mail.gmail.com>
	<4e7ecbc40807171053j5e6f65c0gf3cda9480996a133@mail.gmail.com>
	<487FA967.4060209@mozilla.org> <487FAF45.7050609@KaiRo.at>
Message-ID: <f7910e810807171500g24129adbp8885f0070668272c@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Robert Kaiser <KaiRo at kairo.at> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> I don't agree with John Woods that we should auto-publicize extensions
>> that languish in the sandbox, but I do think we should recognize that
>> review, as currently constituted, does not accomplish the goal of
>> expediently publicizing good extensions (nor, for that matter, filtering
>> bad ones), and AMO should be looking for ways to accomplish that goal
>> outside of the current review system.
>
> I fully agree here. Maybe we can be more aggressive on making a number of
> developers "trusted", meaning they can circumvent the sandbox, if they get
> enough reviews that are positive enough or have provided well-reviewed
> add-ons for a certain time, kept track with current releases of the
> respective products, etc.
> This might reduce the number of add-ons that even need review while still
> keeping a level of security and trust on AMO.
> We should not play lightheartedly with trust, but I think there are certain
> criteria we can derive such trust from, and a huge number of the regulars in
> here for example would surely be trustworthy enough to get their stuff
> public without peer review.
> We probably should concentrate the sandbox and reviews more on those in the
> add-ons community that are not that experienced and not that well-known
> instead of burdening those people with it of which we actually know that
> they are trying to make the best and most trustworthy add-ons they are able
> to produce, and have shown that for quite some time.
>
> Robert Kaiser
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>

I already pointed out my extension is #33. It should have been grandfathered
in as a trusted extension on that alone. In days gone past, I could
just log in to
irc... shake the tree a little... and solve my problem. But really,
any continuance
of the sandbox, without a limit being placed on it's known failures...
is not going
to solve anything. Especially for any new talent arriving on the scene.

Accepting solutions that leave some classes of contributors out... are
not solutions.
It's just playing  favorites... to some.

From eric.jung at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 17 15:04:00 2008
From: eric.jung at yahoo.com (Eric H. Jung)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:04:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO : Improving the Review/Editorial Process
Message-ID: <940069.13886.qm@web30307.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

----- Original Message ----

> From: Robert Kaiser <KaiRo at KaiRo.at>

> I fully agree here. Maybe we can be more aggressive on making a number 
> of developers "trusted", meaning they can circumvent the sandbox, if 
> they get enough reviews that are positive enough or have provided 
> well-reviewed add-ons for a certain time, kept track with current 
> releases of the respective products, etc.
> This might reduce the number of add-ons that even need review while 
> still keeping a level of security and trust on AMO.
> We should not play lightheartedly with trust, but I think there are 
> certain criteria we can derive such trust from, and a huge number of the 
> regulars in here for example would surely be trustworthy enough to get 
> their stuff public without peer review.
> We probably should concentrate the sandbox and reviews more on those in 
> the add-ons community that are not that experienced and not that 
> well-known instead of burdening those people with it of which we 
> actually know that they are trying to make the best and most trustworthy 
> add-ons they are able to produce, and have shown that for quite some time.

FYI, currently *addons* are trusted, not authors. As Onno mentioned, and as you suggest, it would be nice if authors could be trusted instead of their individual addons, but this is not currently the way AMO works. I have 3+ addons on AMO but only one is trusted.

Eric


      

From trevorhemail-mozdev at yahoo.com.au  Thu Jul 17 20:29:33 2008
From: trevorhemail-mozdev at yahoo.com.au (Trevor Hobson)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:29:33 +1000
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO : Improving the Review/Editorial Process
In-Reply-To: <940069.13886.qm@web30307.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <940069.13886.qm@web30307.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <48800E1D.2080800@yahoo.com.au>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080718/03dd7a06/attachment.html>

From sjwaters at gmail.com  Thu Jul 17 14:37:51 2008
From: sjwaters at gmail.com (S Waters)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:37:51 -0600
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO : Improving the Review/Editorial Process
In-Reply-To: <f7910e810807171249i26ddc572i93a94d19feda4e23@mail.gmail.com>
References: <487CD254.5080809@mozdev.org>
	<767de81b0807170352l2b6c1e64w3c1ba3e6d02d5f79@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7910e810807170451j7beaea17wdade293bd54b8c8e@mail.gmail.com>
	<4e7ecbc40807171053j5e6f65c0gf3cda9480996a133@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7910e810807171249i26ddc572i93a94d19feda4e23@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <160f71840807171437h55b1665ewf47c49aa81190d0e@mail.gmail.com>

Sorry to interject with a slightly OT question, but is it documented
anywhere how many reviews are "enough" reviews for an extension to be
considered for pushing public?

I recently read that AMO Reviewing Guide wiki article (http://wiki
.mozilla.org/Update:Editors/ReviewingGuide#Reviewing_Add-ons) and there is
no definite number listed, just a mention that there should be "a sufficient
number of AMO comments". Quality of the reviews was also not touched on, but
I imagine it plays a part?

Thanks for any info you can provide! My extension has recently shown up on
some Tools for Writers type lists, and they invariably link to the sandboxed
AMO page, not the publicly downloadable version on mozdev (argh). If the AMO
page continues to be more visible, then I guess I should make more of an
effort to get it pushed public.

--Sam

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:49 PM, John Woods <johnrw at gmail.com> wrote:

> Then get rid of the sandbox. It doesn't work For Everbody.
> As the document offered by fligtar shows... you have enough reviewers.
> It has already proven that it does not work for EVERYBODY.
>
> Pushing them public after a certain period of time does NOT Completely
> remove the point of sandbox. How long do you think amo is entitled to
> prevent
> distribution of a distributable extension? Forever?
>
> What do you think is reasonable?
>
> It is clear amo has bitten off more than it can handle.
>
> 2 weeks gives amo enough time to locate "bad" nefarious extensions and
> prevent it from going to the masses. As I said earlier... amo can publish
> a list of "going public soon, so you better find time to review these!"
> daily/weekly whatever. A list like that would then enable some tracking
> of reviewer performance issues which is non existant, and workload.
>
> Work with what you have, or scrap it.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:53 PM, John Marshall <johnm555 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Pushing them public after a certain period of time without review would
> > completely defeat the point of the sandbox and review process. A better
> > solution is just to have more reviewers. I don't know what you mean by
> > favorite extensions, but popular extensions are (almost) always pushed
> > through quickly.
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:51 AM, John Woods <johnrw at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I would like to hear their arguments for keeping extensions in the
> sandbox
> >> indefinitely... ie no guaranteed, fixed time after an extension such as
> >> mine
> >> was submitted "for Editor Review" and it staying in that state
> >> indefinitely.
> >>
> >> Like I said earlier... that website should have a fixed period of time
> to
> >> Review
> >> and if no action is taken in that period of time... the extension
> >> submission
> >> just goes public, except restricted ones like porn search stuff that
> never
> >> make public and aren't intended to be. A timeout.
> >>
> >> That allows everything else to stay the same... favorite extensions can
> be
> >> pushed through faster... but everyone else can fire and forget...
> without
> >> feeling the need to go on irc and ask questions about it nobody there
> will
> >> discuss.
> >>
> >> They do not have the right to just leave things people have put real
> work
> >> into... in http://purgatory.addons.mozilla.org
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:52 AM, Onno Ekker <o.e.ekker at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Brian King <brian at mozdev.org> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> There has been a lot of talk about this in recent threads, so I have
> a
> >> >> proposal.
> >> >>
> >> >> The upcoming Firefox Summit has a few AMO talks on the schedule:
> >> >>
> >> >> http://wiki.mozilla.org/Summit2008/Sessions/Schedule
> >> >>
> >> >> One of them is titled just AMO: Editorial Process, which I believe
> will
> >> >> be
> >> >> a banging of heads to come up with ways to improve things. This is
> one
> >> >> of
> >> >> the high priorities at AMO.
> >> >>
> >> >> So what I would like you to do is reply to this post with your ideas
> on
> >> >> how to improve the process. I will then compile a list and present it
> >> >> at the
> >> >> summit. I might also blog about it. Even if some of the ideas are
> >> >> followed
> >> >> through on, that would be a step in the right direction.
> >> >>
> >> >> Put your ideas into 3 separate categories:
> >> >>
> >> >> 1) General : What the pain points are for you, and a proposal on how
> to
> >> >> fix/improve. Let's focus on the review process, but site bugs can be
> >> >> included.
> >> >> 2) Feature Requests : Things you would like to see (or removed) on
> the
> >> >> site.
> >> >> 3) Mozdev ties : Ideas on how Mozdev could integrate with AMO.
> >> >>
> >> >> Guidelines:
> >> >>
> >> >> - Be constructive!
> >> >> - Keep each entry short. One liners where possible.
> >> >> - Cite bugs if they exist.
> >> >> - Do not follow-up on any ideas proposed, especially to knock it
> down.
> >> >> The
> >> >> exception might be to clarify a broken link or cite a bug. You can
> open
> >> >> a
> >> >> new thread if you like to start a discussion on a particular feature.
> >> >> Let's
> >> >> work on the assumption that all ideas are good ideas for now.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >> - Brian
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> Project_owners mailing list
> >> >> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> >> >> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
> >> >
> >> > 1) General:
> >> > - AMO (and the rest of mozilla) is too much focused on Firefox. I'm
> >> > afraid
> >> > this won't get any better with Thunderbird going to
> >> > mozillamessaging.com.
> >> > (bugs 308193, 376350, 424933, 431707)
> >> >
> >> > 2) Feature Requests:
> >> > - Make the pending queue publicly accessible, or show stats about
> depth,
> >> > average time, etc... (bug 427104)
> >> > - Add documentation about Trusted extensions. What are they? How does
> an
> >> > extension become trusted?
> >> >
> >> > 3) Mozdev ties:
> >> > - Not specific for review process, but MDC should link to mozdev page
> >> > (now
> >> > it links to project owners list) (see also bug 418179)
> >> >
> >> > HTH
> >> >
> >> > Onno
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Project_owners mailing list
> >> > Project_owners at mozdev.org
> >> > https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
> >> >
> >> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Project_owners mailing list
> >> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> >> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Project_owners mailing list
> > Project_owners at mozdev.org
> > https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080717/c33e8b1c/attachment.html>

From belaviyo at gmail.com  Tue Jul 22 08:46:29 2008
From: belaviyo at gmail.com (joe ertaba)
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:16:29 +0330
Subject: [Project_owners] access js variables in extension
Message-ID: <23d9f6b20807220846h12642598hf1f5ef5c82e8827d@mail.gmail.com>

Hi

I wounder if there is any way to get variable of current tab html page and
use them in extension. e.g:

<script type="text/javascript">
 var bb="bbb";
</script>


P.S: I test content.wrappedJSObject.bb but seems that it doesn't work! any
idea ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080722/72c31a4f/attachment.html>

From silfreed at silfreed.net  Tue Jul 22 09:55:47 2008
From: silfreed at silfreed.net (Douglas E. Warner)
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:55:47 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] Transfering project ownership for unreachable
	project owners
Message-ID: <200807221255.48042.silfreed@silfreed.net>

We're trying to update our project adoption policy [1] to take into 
consideration when we can't reach the current project owner.

We currently have a situation where a current project contributor would like 
to take over the project but we can't reach the project owner (emails bounce).  
How do others feel we should handle situations like this?

Currently we've tried looking up the project owner on the Internet by 
searching for their name and emailing addresses that look viable; we've 
checked our bugzilla for updated email addresses as well.

Do people think the project adoption policy should be shortened when we have 
no way of contacting the project owner (the current wait-time is about a 
month)?

Any other ideas about how to handle this type of situation would be 
appreciated.

[1] http://www.mozdev.org/projects/adoption.html

-- 
Douglas E. Warner    <silfreed at silfreed.net>    Site Developer
Mozdev.org           http://www.mozdev.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080722/8df07f02/attachment.bin>

From philip.chee at gmail.com  Tue Jul 22 10:21:47 2008
From: philip.chee at gmail.com (Philip Chee)
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 01:21:47 +0800
Subject: [Project_owners] Transfering project ownership for unreachable
	project owners
In-Reply-To: <mailman.306.1216745760.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
References: <mailman.306.1216745760.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g654uu$16h6$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:55:47 -0400, Douglas E. Warner wrote:

> Do people think the project adoption policy should be shortened when we have 
> no way of contacting the project owner (the current wait-time is about a 
> month)?

I think it's safer not to shorten the wait-time. You don't want
something like the MD5Hash contretemps where the author only checks his
email once in two months or something.

Phil

-- 
Philip Chee <philip at aleytys.pc.my>, <philip.chee at gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.


From silfreed at silfreed.net  Tue Jul 22 11:33:22 2008
From: silfreed at silfreed.net (Douglas E. Warner)
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:33:22 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] Transfering project ownership for unreachable
	project owners
In-Reply-To: <g654uu$16h6$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <mailman.306.1216745760.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g654uu$16h6$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <200807221433.22706.silfreed@silfreed.net>

On Tuesday 22 July 2008 13:21:47 Philip Chee wrote:
> I think it's safer not to shorten the wait-time. You don't want
> something like the MD5Hash contretemps where the author only checks his
> email once in two months or something.

The case we're talking about is when the email doesn't work; for example, it 
bounces or is returned for some other reason, and we don't have any other 
addresses to try.

-Doug

-- 
Douglas E. Warner    <silfreed at silfreed.net>    Site Developer
Mozdev.org           http://www.mozdev.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080722/e1df2b1f/attachment.bin>

From massey at stlouis-shopper.com  Tue Jul 22 13:39:12 2008
From: massey at stlouis-shopper.com (massey)
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:39:12 -0500
Subject: [Project_owners] Transfering project ownership for unreachable
 project owners
In-Reply-To: <200807221255.48042.silfreed@silfreed.net>
References: <200807221255.48042.silfreed@silfreed.net>
Message-ID: <48864570.8050807@stlouis-shopper.com>

I would think in a case like that you at least make a backup that could 
be kept for some(long) period of time. The person may get out of jail or 
something and want to pick where he/she left off. The thing is it's 
someones work and who knows the circumstances.

Jim

Douglas E. Warner wrote:

>We're trying to update our project adoption policy [1] to take into 
>consideration when we can't reach the current project owner.
>
>We currently have a situation where a current project contributor would like 
>to take over the project but we can't reach the project owner (emails bounce).  
>How do others feel we should handle situations like this?
>
>Currently we've tried looking up the project owner on the Internet by 
>searching for their name and emailing addresses that look viable; we've 
>checked our bugzilla for updated email addresses as well.
>
>Do people think the project adoption policy should be shortened when we have 
>no way of contacting the project owner (the current wait-time is about a 
>month)?
>
>Any other ideas about how to handle this type of situation would be 
>appreciated.
>
>[1] http://www.mozdev.org/projects/adoption.html
>
>  
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Project_owners mailing list
>Project_owners at mozdev.org
>https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>  
>

From brian at mozdev.org  Wed Jul 23 16:59:47 2008
From: brian at mozdev.org (Brian King)
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:59:47 -0700
Subject: [Project_owners] Misunderstanding [ was Re: AMO : Improving the
 Review/Editorial Process]
In-Reply-To: <g5mqsl$1ntm$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <mailman.263.1216139871.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>	<g5iuvh$1sad$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>	<mailman.275.1216239414.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g5mqsl$1ntm$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <4887C5F3.8040807@mozdev.org>

Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla wrote:
> Wow!  What a ridiculous statement. Seems like time to unsubscribe.

I'm happy to say Michael is not unsubscribing. We discussed it and it 
turned out to be a misunderstanding on both sides. Michael contributes 
enormously to the Mozdev community and I hope he continues to do so.

- Brian

From evan_eveland at nycap.rr.com  Wed Jul 23 17:53:59 2008
From: evan_eveland at nycap.rr.com (Evan Eveland)
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:53:59 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] Feeling pretty dumb now...
Message-ID: <200807232053.59757.evan_eveland@nycap.rr.com>

I've got a dumb problem.  I never updated my email address on 
https://addons.mozilla.org when I changed ISPs.  I'm now unable to log in to 
do the version update as I forgot the password.  I was using 
evan_evelandATearthlinkDOTnet, now I'm with RoadRunner so it's 
evan_evelandATnycapDOTrrDOTcom...  I still have CVS access at mozdev and have 
updated over there.  Is there a way to get the password reset? If not, should 
I create a new login and add the new version? 

Arg!

Thanks,
Evan

From johnrw at gmail.com  Wed Jul 23 19:59:22 2008
From: johnrw at gmail.com (John Woods)
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:59:22 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] Feeling pretty dumb now...
In-Reply-To: <200807232053.59757.evan_eveland@nycap.rr.com>
References: <200807232053.59757.evan_eveland@nycap.rr.com>
Message-ID: <f7910e810807231959g2f9d017ai3bf2ae335a70bf5b@mail.gmail.com>

I would think someone can update your profile, so you could reset a password.
If not... I'd call earthlink to see if I could work with them about
the old mail address.
On an old isp I had... instead of leaving... I put the account on a
vacation like status.
Forwarded my mail to the new account... until I was satisfied
everything was moved.
Then I pulled the plug. You might be able to renegotiate your standing
with Earthlink.
If they are hard to work with... call Priceline and ask for Bill
Shatner... and tell him
you need some lessons. :)

Seriously... they might be able to reactivate your account if it
hasn't been that long.
Even if you just get it at a reduced dialup/email only kind of
account... might be only
a couple of bucks that way. Unless you are sure it is only your mozdev
account that
you need access to it for... you might want to think about doing that.

Good luck.
John

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 8:53 PM, Evan Eveland <evan_eveland at nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> I've got a dumb problem.  I never updated my email address on
> https://addons.mozilla.org when I changed ISPs.  I'm now unable to log in to
> do the version update as I forgot the password.  I was using
> evan_evelandATearthlinkDOTnet, now I'm with RoadRunner so it's
> evan_evelandATnycapDOTrrDOTcom...  I still have CVS access at mozdev and have
> updated over there.  Is there a way to get the password reset? If not, should
> I create a new login and add the new version?
>
> Arg!
>
> Thanks,
> Evan
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>

From silver.surfer444 at gmail.com  Thu Jul 24 01:20:59 2008
From: silver.surfer444 at gmail.com (Silver Surfer)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:50:59 +0530
Subject: [Project_owners] send data to a web page and process it without
	loading to browser.
Message-ID: <e6956fe10807240120ua15332k92530a296e167021@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Friends,
I'm developing an new extension and I need to send some data(user input) to
a web page and do some processing in there without loading that web page to
the browser. ( The functionality I need is similar to the functionality of
delicious firefox extension. ) But I still don't have an idea to call to
script in a web browser without loading it to the browser. I would be very
please if anyone of you can help me for this problems.

thanks & regards,
SS

-- 
~Silver Surfer~
Surfing through time & space
http://risingofsilversurfer.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080724/7cf3a582/attachment.html>

From varun21 at gmail.com  Thu Jul 24 01:43:49 2008
From: varun21 at gmail.com (Shivanand Sharma / Varun)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:13:49 +0530
Subject: [Project_owners] send data to a web page and process it without
	loading to browser.
In-Reply-To: <e6956fe10807240120ua15332k92530a296e167021@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e6956fe10807240120ua15332k92530a296e167021@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1a9fd9700807240143h5413ed2dh6249784300085c27@mail.gmail.com>

use hidden iframe?

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Silver Surfer <silver.surfer444 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Friends,
> I'm developing an new extension and I need to send some data(user input) to
> a web page and do some processing in there without loading that web page to
> the browser. ( The functionality I need is similar to the functionality of
> delicious firefox extension. ) But I still don't have an idea to call to
> script in a web browser without loading it to the browser. I would be very
> please if anyone of you can help me for this problems.
>
> thanks & regards,
> SS
>
> --
> ~Silver Surfer~
> Surfing through time & space
> http://risingofsilversurfer.blogspot.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
>


-- 
Cheers!
Shivanand Sharma
Editor: http://binaryturf.com
Technology, Design, Monetization
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080724/8ba09d90/attachment.html>

From jesper at heroes-addon.dk  Thu Jul 24 02:04:41 2008
From: jesper at heroes-addon.dk (Jesper Staun Hansen)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:04:41 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] send data to a web page and process it without
 loading to browser.
In-Reply-To: <1a9fd9700807240143h5413ed2dh6249784300085c27@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e6956fe10807240120ua15332k92530a296e167021@mail.gmail.com>
	<1a9fd9700807240143h5413ed2dh6249784300085c27@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <488845A9.5050903@heroes-addon.dk>

or xmlhttprequest
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/XMLHttpRequest
You need to put something into .send('data=true')

Shivanand Sharma / Varun wrote:
> use hidden iframe?
>
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Silver Surfer 
> <silver.surfer444 at gmail.com <mailto:silver.surfer444 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Friends,
>     I'm developing an new extension and I need to send some data(user
>     input) to a web page and do some processing in there without
>     loading that web page to the browser. ( The functionality I need
>     is similar to the functionality of delicious firefox extension. )
>     But I still don't have an idea to call to script in a web browser
>     without loading it to the browser. I would be very please if
>     anyone of you can help me for this problems.
>      
>     thanks & regards,
>     SS
>
>     -- 
>     ~Silver Surfer~
>     Surfing through time & space
>     http://risingofsilversurfer.blogspot.com/
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Project_owners mailing list
>     Project_owners at mozdev.org <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>
>     https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Cheers!
> Shivanand Sharma
> Editor: http://binaryturf.com
> Technology, Design, Monetization
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>   


From silver.surfer444 at gmail.com  Thu Jul 24 02:14:43 2008
From: silver.surfer444 at gmail.com (Silver Surfer)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:44:43 +0530
Subject: [Project_owners] send data to a web page and process it without
	loading to browser.
In-Reply-To: <1a9fd9700807240143h5413ed2dh6249784300085c27@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e6956fe10807240120ua15332k92530a296e167021@mail.gmail.com>
	<1a9fd9700807240143h5413ed2dh6249784300085c27@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e6956fe10807240214w45429acclcb550adb767b804e@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Shivanand Sharma / Varun <varun21 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> use hidden iframe?
>
>   On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Silver Surfer <
> silver.surfer444 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>   Hi Friends,
>> I'm developing an new extension and I need to send some data(user
>> input) to a web page and do some processing in there without loading that
>> web page to the browser. ( The functionality I need is similar to the
>> functionality of delicious firefox extension. ) But I still don't have an
>> idea to call to script in a web browser without loading it to the browser. I
>> would be very please if anyone of you can help me for this problems.
>>
>> thanks & regards,
>> SS
>>
>> --
>> ~Silver Surfer~
>> Surfing through time & space
>> http://risingofsilversurfer.blogspot.com/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Project_owners mailing list
>> Project_owners at mozdev.org
>> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Cheers!
> Shivanand Sharma
> Editor: http://binaryturf.com
> Technology, Design, Monetization
>
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
>
thanks Shivanand,
it's a good idea. But I have another idea, If we can use AJAX in developing
firefox extensions, then I think I can do what I want.

Can we use AJAX for developing extensions ( Most probably I think we can,
but need to confirm that idea).
If so I think I can call to a PHP page with relevant user data and do the
processing of that data.
Am I correct friends?

-- 
~Silver Surfer~
Surfing through time & space
http://risingofsilversurfer.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080724/1e0268c5/attachment-0001.html>

From ocramius at gmail.com  Thu Jul 24 03:11:02 2008
From: ocramius at gmail.com (Marco Pivetta)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:11:02 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] send data to a web page and process it without
	loading to browser.
In-Reply-To: <e6956fe10807240214w45429acclcb550adb767b804e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e6956fe10807240120ua15332k92530a296e167021@mail.gmail.com>
	<1a9fd9700807240143h5413ed2dh6249784300085c27@mail.gmail.com>
	<e6956fe10807240214w45429acclcb550adb767b804e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b5a086e0807240311m3183bb5dq75943de7e8fe7ff9@mail.gmail.com>

I use tons of AJAX in my StOgame Extension ;)

As an example:

        var req=new XMLHttpRequest();
        var postdata="l="+language+"&u="+universe; //MY DATA...
        req.mozBackgroundRequest=true; //REQUEST DOESN'T GENERATE POPUPS
AND/OR CERTIFICATE AGREEMENTS ETC...
        req.onload=function()
            {
//CHECK READYSTATE
                if(
                    (req.status==200)
                    &&(req.readyState==4)
                )
                {
//CHECK IF PHP DIDNT CRASH XD
                    if(parseInt(req.responseText)==1)
                    {
                        var
expiration_timestamps=req.responseText.split(",");
                        var playerranksstatusupdate=AccountDB
                            .createStatement
                            (
                               //LET'S DO SOME COOL STUFF WITH SQLite ;)
                            );
                               //ETC...
                      }
                }
                else
                {
                    //ERROR: 404, PHP, SQL, ETC...
                }
            };
        req.onprogress=function(e)
            {
                //alert("position: "+e.position+"\nototalSize:
"+e.totalSize)
            };
        req.onreadystatechange=function()
            {
                //alert("readyState: "+req.readyState+"\nstatus:
"+req.status);
            };
        req.onerror=function()
            {
                //alert("error!!!")
            };
        req.open('POST', "
http://www.stogame.net/stogalaxy/test/rankupdatestatus.php", true);

req.setRequestHeader('Content-Type','application/x-www-form-urlencoded');
//USED FOR POST DATA
        req.setRequestHeader("Content-length", postdata.length); //USED FOR
POST DATA
        req.setRequestHeader("Connection", "close");
        req.send(postdata);
    }

2008/7/24 Silver Surfer <silver.surfer444 at gmail.com>:

>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Shivanand Sharma / Varun <
> varun21 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> use hidden iframe?
>>
>>   On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Silver Surfer <
>> silver.surfer444 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>   Hi Friends,
>>> I'm developing an new extension and I need to send some data(user
>>> input) to a web page and do some processing in there without loading that
>>> web page to the browser. ( The functionality I need is similar to the
>>> functionality of delicious firefox extension. ) But I still don't have an
>>> idea to call to script in a web browser without loading it to the browser. I
>>> would be very please if anyone of you can help me for this problems.
>>>
>>> thanks & regards,
>>> SS
>>>
>>> --
>>> ~Silver Surfer~
>>> Surfing through time & space
>>> http://risingofsilversurfer.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Project_owners mailing list
>>> Project_owners at mozdev.org
>>> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers!
>> Shivanand Sharma
>> Editor: http://binaryturf.com
>> Technology, Design, Monetization
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Project_owners mailing list
>> Project_owners at mozdev.org
>> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>
>>
> thanks Shivanand,
> it's a good idea. But I have another idea, If we can use AJAX in developing
> firefox extensions, then I think I can do what I want.
>
> Can we use AJAX for developing extensions ( Most probably I think we can,
> but need to confirm that idea).
> If so I think I can call to a PHP page with relevant user data and do the
> processing of that data.
> Am I correct friends?
>
> --
> ~Silver Surfer~
> Surfing through time & space
> http://risingofsilversurfer.blogspot.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
>


-- 
Standard Ogame Project - StOgame
http://www.stogame.net
Making Ogame a better place...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080724/d61e685a/attachment.html>

From ocramius at gmail.com  Thu Jul 24 03:17:56 2008
From: ocramius at gmail.com (Marco Pivetta)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:17:56 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] send data to a web page and process it without
	loading to browser.
In-Reply-To: <b5a086e0807240311m3183bb5dq75943de7e8fe7ff9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e6956fe10807240120ua15332k92530a296e167021@mail.gmail.com>
	<1a9fd9700807240143h5413ed2dh6249784300085c27@mail.gmail.com>
	<e6956fe10807240214w45429acclcb550adb767b804e@mail.gmail.com>
	<b5a086e0807240311m3183bb5dq75943de7e8fe7ff9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b5a086e0807240317t51556a4aue51bf6d2d2ca2e2b@mail.gmail.com>

Forgot to tell you that "req.mozBackgroundRequest=true;" works with FF3 only
;)

2008/7/24 Marco Pivetta <ocramius at gmail.com>:

> I use tons of AJAX in my StOgame Extension ;)
>
> As an example:
>
>         var req=new XMLHttpRequest();
>         var postdata="l="+language+"&u="+universe; //MY DATA...
>         req.mozBackgroundRequest=true; //REQUEST DOESN'T GENERATE POPUPS
> AND/OR CERTIFICATE AGREEMENTS ETC...
>         req.onload=function()
>             {
> //CHECK READYSTATE
>                 if(
>                     (req.status==200)
>                     &&(req.readyState==4)
>                 )
>                 {
> //CHECK IF PHP DIDNT CRASH XD
>                     if(parseInt(req.responseText)==1)
>                     {
>                         var
> expiration_timestamps=req.responseText.split(",");
>                         var playerranksstatusupdate=AccountDB
>                             .createStatement
>                             (
>                                //LET'S DO SOME COOL STUFF WITH SQLite ;)
>                             );
>                                //ETC...
>                       }
>                 }
>                 else
>                 {
>                     //ERROR: 404, PHP, SQL, ETC...
>                 }
>             };
>         req.onprogress=function(e)
>             {
>                 //alert("position: "+e.position+"\nototalSize:
> "+e.totalSize)
>             };
>         req.onreadystatechange=function()
>             {
>                 //alert("readyState: "+req.readyState+"\nstatus:
> "+req.status);
>             };
>         req.onerror=function()
>             {
>                 //alert("error!!!")
>             };
>         req.open('POST', "
> http://www.stogame.net/stogalaxy/test/rankupdatestatus.php", true);
>
> req.setRequestHeader('Content-Type','application/x-www-form-urlencoded');
> //USED FOR POST DATA
>         req.setRequestHeader("Content-length", postdata.length); //USED FOR
> POST DATA
>         req.setRequestHeader("Connection", "close");
>         req.send(postdata);
>     }
>
> 2008/7/24 Silver Surfer <silver.surfer444 at gmail.com>:
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Shivanand Sharma / Varun <
>> varun21 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> use hidden iframe?
>>>
>>>   On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Silver Surfer <
>>> silver.surfer444 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>   Hi Friends,
>>>> I'm developing an new extension and I need to send some data(user
>>>> input) to a web page and do some processing in there without loading that
>>>> web page to the browser. ( The functionality I need is similar to the
>>>> functionality of delicious firefox extension. ) But I still don't have an
>>>> idea to call to script in a web browser without loading it to the browser. I
>>>> would be very please if anyone of you can help me for this problems.
>>>>
>>>> thanks & regards,
>>>> SS
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ~Silver Surfer~
>>>> Surfing through time & space
>>>> http://risingofsilversurfer.blogspot.com/
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Project_owners mailing list
>>>> Project_owners at mozdev.org
>>>> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers!
>>> Shivanand Sharma
>>> Editor: http://binaryturf.com
>>> Technology, Design, Monetization
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Project_owners mailing list
>>> Project_owners at mozdev.org
>>> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>>
>>>
>> thanks Shivanand,
>> it's a good idea. But I have another idea, If we can use AJAX in
>> developing firefox extensions, then I think I can do what I want.
>>
>> Can we use AJAX for developing extensions ( Most probably I think we can,
>> but need to confirm that idea).
>> If so I think I can call to a PHP page with relevant user data and do the
>> processing of that data.
>> Am I correct friends?
>>
>> --
>> ~Silver Surfer~
>> Surfing through time & space
>> http://risingofsilversurfer.blogspot.com/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Project_owners mailing list
>> Project_owners at mozdev.org
>> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Standard Ogame Project - StOgame
> http://www.stogame.net
> Making Ogame a better place...
>



-- 
Standard Ogame Project - StOgame
http://www.stogame.net
Making Ogame a better place...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080724/2c8a86e4/attachment-0001.html>

From silver.surfer444 at gmail.com  Thu Jul 24 03:25:47 2008
From: silver.surfer444 at gmail.com (Silver Surfer)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:55:47 +0530
Subject: [Project_owners] send data to a web page and process it without
	loading to browser.
In-Reply-To: <488845A9.5050903@heroes-addon.dk>
References: <e6956fe10807240120ua15332k92530a296e167021@mail.gmail.com>
	<1a9fd9700807240143h5413ed2dh6249784300085c27@mail.gmail.com>
	<488845A9.5050903@heroes-addon.dk>
Message-ID: <e6956fe10807240325g631ef10cka1180ebfbdad901e@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Jesper,
I just saw your mail. Somehow I didn't see it before. :)
I think it is the thing what I need. Thanks for the idea and I will try to
use it.
thanks & regards,
SS
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Jesper Staun Hansen <jesper at heroes-addon.dk>
wrote:

> or xmlhttprequest
> http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/XMLHttpRequest
> You need to put something into .send('data=true')
>
> Shivanand Sharma / Varun wrote:
>
>> use hidden iframe?
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Silver Surfer <
>> silver.surfer444 at gmail.com <mailto:silver.surfer444 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>    Hi Friends,
>>    I'm developing an new extension and I need to send some data(user
>>    input) to a web page and do some processing in there without
>>    loading that web page to the browser. ( The functionality I need
>>    is similar to the functionality of delicious firefox extension. )
>>    But I still don't have an idea to call to script in a web browser
>>    without loading it to the browser. I would be very please if
>>    anyone of you can help me for this problems.
>>        thanks & regards,
>>    SS
>>
>>    --    ~Silver Surfer~
>>    Surfing through time & space
>>    http://risingofsilversurfer.blogspot.com/
>>
>>    _______________________________________________
>>    Project_owners mailing list
>>    Project_owners at mozdev.org <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>
>>    https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers!
>> Shivanand Sharma
>> Editor: http://binaryturf.com
>> Technology, Design, Monetization
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Project_owners mailing list
>> Project_owners at mozdev.org
>> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>



-- 
~Silver Surfer~
Surfing through time & space
http://risingofsilversurfer.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080724/0a5d9fff/attachment.html>

From jesper at heroes-addon.dk  Thu Jul 24 03:24:56 2008
From: jesper at heroes-addon.dk (Jesper Staun Hansen)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:24:56 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] send data to a web page and process it without
 loading to browser.
In-Reply-To: <b5a086e0807240317t51556a4aue51bf6d2d2ca2e2b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e6956fe10807240120ua15332k92530a296e167021@mail.gmail.com>	<1a9fd9700807240143h5413ed2dh6249784300085c27@mail.gmail.com>	<e6956fe10807240214w45429acclcb550adb767b804e@mail.gmail.com>	<b5a086e0807240311m3183bb5dq75943de7e8fe7ff9@mail.gmail.com>
	<b5a086e0807240317t51556a4aue51bf6d2d2ca2e2b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <48885878.3040305@heroes-addon.dk>

Whats the story behind mozBackgroundRequest?

Marco Pivetta wrote:
> Forgot to tell you that "req.mozBackgroundRequest=true;" works with 
> FF3 only ;)
>
> 2008/7/24 Marco Pivetta <ocramius at gmail.com <mailto:ocramius at gmail.com>>:
>
>     I use tons of AJAX in my StOgame Extension ;)
>
>     As an example:
>
>             var req=new XMLHttpRequest();
>             var postdata="l="+language+"&u="+universe; //MY DATA...
>             req.mozBackgroundRequest=true; //REQUEST DOESN'T GENERATE
>     POPUPS AND/OR CERTIFICATE AGREEMENTS ETC...
>             req.onload=function()
>                 {
>     //CHECK READYSTATE
>                     if(
>                         (req.status==200)
>                         &&(req.readyState==4)
>                     )
>                     {
>     //CHECK IF PHP DIDNT CRASH XD
>                         if(parseInt(req.responseText)==1)
>                         {
>                             var
>     expiration_timestamps=req.responseText.split(",");
>                             var playerranksstatusupdate=AccountDB
>                                 .createStatement
>                                 (
>                                    //LET'S DO SOME COOL STUFF WITH
>     SQLite ;)
>                                 );
>                                    //ETC...
>                           }
>                     }
>                     else
>                     {
>                         //ERROR: 404, PHP, SQL, ETC...
>                     }
>                 };
>             req.onprogress=function(e)
>                 {
>                     //alert("position: "+e.position+"\nototalSize:
>     "+e.totalSize)
>                 };
>             req.onreadystatechange=function()
>                 {
>                     //alert("readyState: "+req.readyState+"\nstatus:
>     "+req.status);
>                 };
>             req.onerror=function()
>                 {
>                     //alert("error!!!")
>                 };
>             req.open('POST',
>     "http://www.stogame.net/stogalaxy/test/rankupdatestatus.php", true);
>            
>     req.setRequestHeader('Content-Type','application/x-www-form-urlencoded');
>     //USED FOR POST DATA
>             req.setRequestHeader("Content-length", postdata.length);
>     //USED FOR POST DATA
>             req.setRequestHeader("Connection", "close");
>             req.send(postdata);
>         }
>
>     2008/7/24 Silver Surfer <silver.surfer444 at gmail.com
>     <mailto:silver.surfer444 at gmail.com>>:
>
>
>
>          
>         On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Shivanand Sharma / Varun
>         <varun21 at gmail.com <mailto:varun21 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>             use hidden iframe?
>
>             On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Silver Surfer
>             <silver.surfer444 at gmail.com
>             <mailto:silver.surfer444 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>                 Hi Friends,
>                 I'm developing an new extension and I need to send
>                 some data(user input) to a web page and do some
>                 processing in there without loading that web page to
>                 the browser. ( The functionality I need is similar to
>                 the functionality of delicious firefox extension. )
>                 But I still don't have an idea to call to script in a
>                 web browser without loading it to the browser. I would
>                 be very please if anyone of you can help me for this
>                 problems.
>                  
>                 thanks & regards,
>                 SS
>
>                 -- 
>                 ~Silver Surfer~
>                 Surfing through time & space
>                 http://risingofsilversurfer.blogspot.com/
>
>                 _______________________________________________
>                 Project_owners mailing list
>                 Project_owners at mozdev.org
>                 <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>
>                 https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
>
>
>
>             -- 
>             Cheers!
>             Shivanand Sharma
>             Editor: http://binaryturf.com <http://binaryturf.com/>
>             Technology, Design, Monetization
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             Project_owners mailing list
>             Project_owners at mozdev.org <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>
>             https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
>
>         thanks Shivanand,
>         it's a good idea. But I have another idea, If we can use AJAX
>         in developing firefox extensions, then I think I can do what I
>         want.
>          
>         Can we use AJAX for developing extensions ( Most probably I
>         think we can, but need to confirm that idea).
>         If so I think I can call to a PHP page with relevant user data
>         and do the processing of that data.
>         Am I correct friends?
>
>
>         -- 
>         ~Silver Surfer~
>         Surfing through time & space
>         http://risingofsilversurfer.blogspot.com/
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Project_owners mailing list
>         Project_owners at mozdev.org <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>
>         https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Standard Ogame Project - StOgame
>     http://www.stogame.net
>     Making Ogame a better place...
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Standard Ogame Project - StOgame
> http://www.stogame.net
> Making Ogame a better place...
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>   


From varun21 at gmail.com  Thu Jul 24 03:37:16 2008
From: varun21 at gmail.com (Shivanand Sharma / Varun)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:07:16 +0530
Subject: [Project_owners] send data to a web page and process it without
	loading to browser.
In-Reply-To: <48885878.3040305@heroes-addon.dk>
References: <e6956fe10807240120ua15332k92530a296e167021@mail.gmail.com>
	<1a9fd9700807240143h5413ed2dh6249784300085c27@mail.gmail.com>
	<e6956fe10807240214w45429acclcb550adb767b804e@mail.gmail.com>
	<b5a086e0807240311m3183bb5dq75943de7e8fe7ff9@mail.gmail.com>
	<b5a086e0807240317t51556a4aue51bf6d2d2ca2e2b@mail.gmail.com>
	<48885878.3040305@heroes-addon.dk>
Message-ID: <1a9fd9700807240337x5eb7ba2fsa09340c484a42178@mail.gmail.com>

I was about to trash but this is becoming interesting. mozbackgroundrequest?
:)

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Jesper Staun Hansen <jesper at heroes-addon.dk>
wrote:

> Whats the story behind mozBackgroundRequest?
>
> Marco Pivetta wrote:
>
>> Forgot to tell you that "req.mozBackgroundRequest=true;" works with FF3
>> only ;)
>>
>> 2008/7/24 Marco Pivetta <ocramius at gmail.com <mailto:ocramius at gmail.com>>:
>>
>>    I use tons of AJAX in my StOgame Extension ;)
>>
>>    As an example:
>>
>>            var req=new XMLHttpRequest();
>>            var postdata="l="+language+"&u="+universe; //MY DATA...
>>            req.mozBackgroundRequest=true; //REQUEST DOESN'T GENERATE
>>    POPUPS AND/OR CERTIFICATE AGREEMENTS ETC...
>>            req.onload=function()
>>                {
>>    //CHECK READYSTATE
>>                    if(
>>                        (req.status==200)
>>                        &&(req.readyState==4)
>>                    )
>>                    {
>>    //CHECK IF PHP DIDNT CRASH XD
>>                        if(parseInt(req.responseText)==1)
>>                        {
>>                            var
>>    expiration_timestamps=req.responseText.split(",");
>>                            var playerranksstatusupdate=AccountDB
>>                                .createStatement
>>                                (
>>                                   //LET'S DO SOME COOL STUFF WITH
>>    SQLite ;)
>>                                );
>>                                   //ETC...
>>                          }
>>                    }
>>                    else
>>                    {
>>                        //ERROR: 404, PHP, SQL, ETC...
>>                    }
>>                };
>>            req.onprogress=function(e)
>>                {
>>                    //alert("position: "+e.position+"\nototalSize:
>>    "+e.totalSize)
>>                };
>>            req.onreadystatechange=function()
>>                {
>>                    //alert("readyState: "+req.readyState+"\nstatus:
>>    "+req.status);
>>                };
>>            req.onerror=function()
>>                {
>>                    //alert("error!!!")
>>                };
>>            req.open('POST',
>>    "http://www.stogame.net/stogalaxy/test/rankupdatestatus.php", true);
>>
>>  req.setRequestHeader('Content-Type','application/x-www-form-urlencoded');
>>    //USED FOR POST DATA
>>            req.setRequestHeader("Content-length", postdata.length);
>>    //USED FOR POST DATA
>>            req.setRequestHeader("Connection", "close");
>>            req.send(postdata);
>>        }
>>
>>    2008/7/24 Silver Surfer <silver.surfer444 at gmail.com
>>    <mailto:silver.surfer444 at gmail.com>>:
>>
>>
>>
>>                On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Shivanand Sharma / Varun
>>        <varun21 at gmail.com <mailto:varun21 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>            use hidden iframe?
>>
>>            On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Silver Surfer
>>            <silver.surfer444 at gmail.com
>>            <mailto:silver.surfer444 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>                Hi Friends,
>>                I'm developing an new extension and I need to send
>>                some data(user input) to a web page and do some
>>                processing in there without loading that web page to
>>                the browser. ( The functionality I need is similar to
>>                the functionality of delicious firefox extension. )
>>                But I still don't have an idea to call to script in a
>>                web browser without loading it to the browser. I would
>>                be very please if anyone of you can help me for this
>>                problems.
>>                                thanks & regards,
>>                SS
>>
>>                --                ~Silver Surfer~
>>                Surfing through time & space
>>                http://risingofsilversurfer.blogspot.com/
>>
>>                _______________________________________________
>>                Project_owners mailing list
>>                Project_owners at mozdev.org
>>                <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>
>>                https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>            --            Cheers!
>>            Shivanand Sharma
>>            Editor: http://binaryturf.com <http://binaryturf.com/>
>>            Technology, Design, Monetization
>>
>>            _______________________________________________
>>            Project_owners mailing list
>>            Project_owners at mozdev.org <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>
>>            https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>
>>
>>        thanks Shivanand,
>>        it's a good idea. But I have another idea, If we can use AJAX
>>        in developing firefox extensions, then I think I can do what I
>>        want.
>>                Can we use AJAX for developing extensions ( Most probably I
>>        think we can, but need to confirm that idea).
>>        If so I think I can call to a PHP page with relevant user data
>>        and do the processing of that data.
>>        Am I correct friends?
>>
>>
>>        --        ~Silver Surfer~
>>        Surfing through time & space
>>        http://risingofsilversurfer.blogspot.com/
>>
>>        _______________________________________________
>>        Project_owners mailing list
>>        Project_owners at mozdev.org <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>
>>        https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>    --    Standard Ogame Project - StOgame
>>    http://www.stogame.net
>>    Making Ogame a better place...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Standard Ogame Project - StOgame
>> http://www.stogame.net
>> Making Ogame a better place...
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Project_owners mailing list
>> Project_owners at mozdev.org
>> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>



-- 
Cheers!
Shivanand Sharma
Editor: http://binaryturf.com
Technology, Design, Monetization
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080724/36441c0c/attachment-0001.html>

From ocramius at gmail.com  Thu Jul 24 03:37:15 2008
From: ocramius at gmail.com (Marco Pivetta)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:37:15 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] send data to a web page and process it without
	loading to browser.
In-Reply-To: <48885878.3040305@heroes-addon.dk>
References: <e6956fe10807240120ua15332k92530a296e167021@mail.gmail.com>
	<1a9fd9700807240143h5413ed2dh6249784300085c27@mail.gmail.com>
	<e6956fe10807240214w45429acclcb550adb767b804e@mail.gmail.com>
	<b5a086e0807240311m3183bb5dq75943de7e8fe7ff9@mail.gmail.com>
	<b5a086e0807240317t51556a4aue51bf6d2d2ca2e2b@mail.gmail.com>
	<48885878.3040305@heroes-addon.dk>
Message-ID: <b5a086e0807240337v4710af00vf0147b96e3de2dcf@mail.gmail.com>

>From the MDC:
mozBackgroundRequest

This property can be used to prevent authentication and bad certificate
dialogs from popping up for the request. Also the request will not be
canceled if the window it belongs to is closed. This property works for
chrome code only. New in Firefox
3<http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Firefox_3_for_developers>
There's nothing else about it :(

2008/7/24 Jesper Staun Hansen <jesper at heroes-addon.dk>:

> Whats the story behind mozBackgroundRequest?
>
> Marco Pivetta wrote:
>
>> Forgot to tell you that "req.mozBackgroundRequest=true;" works with FF3
>> only ;)
>>
>> 2008/7/24 Marco Pivetta <ocramius at gmail.com <mailto:ocramius at gmail.com>>:
>>
>>
>>    I use tons of AJAX in my StOgame Extension ;)
>>
>>    As an example:
>>
>>            var req=new XMLHttpRequest();
>>            var postdata="l="+language+"&u="+universe; //MY DATA...
>>            req.mozBackgroundRequest=true; //REQUEST DOESN'T GENERATE
>>    POPUPS AND/OR CERTIFICATE AGREEMENTS ETC...
>>            req.onload=function()
>>                {
>>    //CHECK READYSTATE
>>                    if(
>>                        (req.status==200)
>>                        &&(req.readyState==4)
>>                    )
>>                    {
>>    //CHECK IF PHP DIDNT CRASH XD
>>                        if(parseInt(req.responseText)==1)
>>                        {
>>                            var
>>    expiration_timestamps=req.responseText.split(",");
>>                            var playerranksstatusupdate=AccountDB
>>                                .createStatement
>>                                (
>>                                   //LET'S DO SOME COOL STUFF WITH
>>    SQLite ;)
>>                                );
>>                                   //ETC...
>>                          }
>>                    }
>>                    else
>>                    {
>>                        //ERROR: 404, PHP, SQL, ETC...
>>                    }
>>                };
>>            req.onprogress=function(e)
>>                {
>>                    //alert("position: "+e.position+"\nototalSize:
>>    "+e.totalSize)
>>                };
>>            req.onreadystatechange=function()
>>                {
>>                    //alert("readyState: "+req.readyState+"\nstatus:
>>    "+req.status);
>>                };
>>            req.onerror=function()
>>                {
>>                    //alert("error!!!")
>>                };
>>            req.open('POST',
>>    "http://www.stogame.net/stogalaxy/test/rankupdatestatus.php", true);
>>
>>  req.setRequestHeader('Content-Type','application/x-www-form-urlencoded');
>>    //USED FOR POST DATA
>>            req.setRequestHeader("Content-length", postdata.length);
>>    //USED FOR POST DATA
>>            req.setRequestHeader("Connection", "close");
>>            req.send(postdata);
>>        }
>>
>>    2008/7/24 Silver Surfer <silver.surfer444 at gmail.com
>>    <mailto:silver.surfer444 at gmail.com>>:
>>
>>
>>
>>                On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Shivanand Sharma / Varun
>>        <varun21 at gmail.com <mailto:varun21 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>            use hidden iframe?
>>
>>            On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Silver Surfer
>>            <silver.surfer444 at gmail.com
>>            <mailto:silver.surfer444 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>                Hi Friends,
>>                I'm developing an new extension and I need to send
>>                some data(user input) to a web page and do some
>>                processing in there without loading that web page to
>>                the browser. ( The functionality I need is similar to
>>                the functionality of delicious firefox extension. )
>>                But I still don't have an idea to call to script in a
>>                web browser without loading it to the browser. I would
>>                be very please if anyone of you can help me for this
>>                problems.
>>                                thanks & regards,
>>                SS
>>
>>                --                ~Silver Surfer~
>>                Surfing through time & space
>>                http://risingofsilversurfer.blogspot.com/
>>
>>                _______________________________________________
>>                Project_owners mailing list
>>                Project_owners at mozdev.org
>>                <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>
>>                https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>            --            Cheers!
>>            Shivanand Sharma
>>            Editor: http://binaryturf.com <http://binaryturf.com/>
>>            Technology, Design, Monetization
>>
>>            _______________________________________________
>>            Project_owners mailing list
>>            Project_owners at mozdev.org <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>
>>            https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>
>>
>>        thanks Shivanand,
>>        it's a good idea. But I have another idea, If we can use AJAX
>>        in developing firefox extensions, then I think I can do what I
>>        want.
>>                Can we use AJAX for developing extensions ( Most probably I
>>        think we can, but need to confirm that idea).
>>        If so I think I can call to a PHP page with relevant user data
>>        and do the processing of that data.
>>        Am I correct friends?
>>
>>
>>        --        ~Silver Surfer~
>>        Surfing through time & space
>>        http://risingofsilversurfer.blogspot.com/
>>
>>        _______________________________________________
>>        Project_owners mailing list
>>        Project_owners at mozdev.org <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>
>>        https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>    --    Standard Ogame Project - StOgame
>>    http://www.stogame.net
>>    Making Ogame a better place...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Standard Ogame Project - StOgame
>> http://www.stogame.net
>> Making Ogame a better place...
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Project_owners mailing list
>> Project_owners at mozdev.org
>> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>



-- 
Standard Ogame Project - StOgame
http://www.stogame.net
Making Ogame a better place...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080724/bf7b41a3/attachment.html>

From varun21 at gmail.com  Thu Jul 24 03:40:38 2008
From: varun21 at gmail.com (Shivanand Sharma / Varun)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:10:38 +0530
Subject: [Project_owners] send data to a web page and process it without
	loading to browser.
In-Reply-To: <b5a086e0807240337v4710af00vf0147b96e3de2dcf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e6956fe10807240120ua15332k92530a296e167021@mail.gmail.com>
	<1a9fd9700807240143h5413ed2dh6249784300085c27@mail.gmail.com>
	<e6956fe10807240214w45429acclcb550adb767b804e@mail.gmail.com>
	<b5a086e0807240311m3183bb5dq75943de7e8fe7ff9@mail.gmail.com>
	<b5a086e0807240317t51556a4aue51bf6d2d2ca2e2b@mail.gmail.com>
	<48885878.3040305@heroes-addon.dk>
	<b5a086e0807240337v4710af00vf0147b96e3de2dcf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1a9fd9700807240340l11d3efd9yf806d257a3b2a1e5@mail.gmail.com>

yup. But if I'm getting this right, looks like it overrides bad client
certificates/authentication. Seems like a soft corner on the security front.

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Marco Pivetta <ocramius at gmail.com> wrote:

> From the MDC:
> mozBackgroundRequest
>
> This property can be used to prevent authentication and bad certificate
> dialogs from popping up for the request. Also the request will not be
> canceled if the window it belongs to is closed. This property works for
> chrome code only. New in Firefox 3<http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Firefox_3_for_developers>
> There's nothing else about it :(
>
> 2008/7/24 Jesper Staun Hansen <jesper at heroes-addon.dk>:
>
> Whats the story behind mozBackgroundRequest?
>>
>> Marco Pivetta wrote:
>>
>>> Forgot to tell you that "req.mozBackgroundRequest=true;" works with FF3
>>> only ;)
>>>
>>> 2008/7/24 Marco Pivetta <ocramius at gmail.com <mailto:ocramius at gmail.com
>>> >>:
>>>
>>>
>>>    I use tons of AJAX in my StOgame Extension ;)
>>>
>>>    As an example:
>>>
>>>            var req=new XMLHttpRequest();
>>>            var postdata="l="+language+"&u="+universe; //MY DATA...
>>>            req.mozBackgroundRequest=true; //REQUEST DOESN'T GENERATE
>>>    POPUPS AND/OR CERTIFICATE AGREEMENTS ETC...
>>>            req.onload=function()
>>>                {
>>>    //CHECK READYSTATE
>>>                    if(
>>>                        (req.status==200)
>>>                        &&(req.readyState==4)
>>>                    )
>>>                    {
>>>    //CHECK IF PHP DIDNT CRASH XD
>>>                        if(parseInt(req.responseText)==1)
>>>                        {
>>>                            var
>>>    expiration_timestamps=req.responseText.split(",");
>>>                            var playerranksstatusupdate=AccountDB
>>>                                .createStatement
>>>                                (
>>>                                   //LET'S DO SOME COOL STUFF WITH
>>>    SQLite ;)
>>>                                );
>>>                                   //ETC...
>>>                          }
>>>                    }
>>>                    else
>>>                    {
>>>                        //ERROR: 404, PHP, SQL, ETC...
>>>                    }
>>>                };
>>>            req.onprogress=function(e)
>>>                {
>>>                    //alert("position: "+e.position+"\nototalSize:
>>>    "+e.totalSize)
>>>                };
>>>            req.onreadystatechange=function()
>>>                {
>>>                    //alert("readyState: "+req.readyState+"\nstatus:
>>>    "+req.status);
>>>                };
>>>            req.onerror=function()
>>>                {
>>>                    //alert("error!!!")
>>>                };
>>>            req.open('POST',
>>>    "http://www.stogame.net/stogalaxy/test/rankupdatestatus.php", true);
>>>
>>>  req.setRequestHeader('Content-Type','application/x-www-form-urlencoded');
>>>    //USED FOR POST DATA
>>>            req.setRequestHeader("Content-length", postdata.length);
>>>    //USED FOR POST DATA
>>>            req.setRequestHeader("Connection", "close");
>>>            req.send(postdata);
>>>        }
>>>
>>>    2008/7/24 Silver Surfer <silver.surfer444 at gmail.com
>>>    <mailto:silver.surfer444 at gmail.com>>:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>                On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Shivanand Sharma / Varun
>>>        <varun21 at gmail.com <mailto:varun21 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>            use hidden iframe?
>>>
>>>            On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Silver Surfer
>>>            <silver.surfer444 at gmail.com
>>>            <mailto:silver.surfer444 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>                Hi Friends,
>>>                I'm developing an new extension and I need to send
>>>                some data(user input) to a web page and do some
>>>                processing in there without loading that web page to
>>>                the browser. ( The functionality I need is similar to
>>>                the functionality of delicious firefox extension. )
>>>                But I still don't have an idea to call to script in a
>>>                web browser without loading it to the browser. I would
>>>                be very please if anyone of you can help me for this
>>>                problems.
>>>                                thanks & regards,
>>>                SS
>>>
>>>                --                ~Silver Surfer~
>>>                Surfing through time & space
>>>                http://risingofsilversurfer.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>>                _______________________________________________
>>>                Project_owners mailing list
>>>                Project_owners at mozdev.org
>>>                <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>
>>>                https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>            --            Cheers!
>>>            Shivanand Sharma
>>>            Editor: http://binaryturf.com <http://binaryturf.com/>
>>>            Technology, Design, Monetization
>>>
>>>            _______________________________________________
>>>            Project_owners mailing list
>>>            Project_owners at mozdev.org <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>
>>>            https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>>
>>>
>>>        thanks Shivanand,
>>>        it's a good idea. But I have another idea, If we can use AJAX
>>>        in developing firefox extensions, then I think I can do what I
>>>        want.
>>>                Can we use AJAX for developing extensions ( Most probably
>>> I
>>>        think we can, but need to confirm that idea).
>>>        If so I think I can call to a PHP page with relevant user data
>>>        and do the processing of that data.
>>>        Am I correct friends?
>>>
>>>
>>>        --        ~Silver Surfer~
>>>        Surfing through time & space
>>>        http://risingofsilversurfer.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>>        _______________________________________________
>>>        Project_owners mailing list
>>>        Project_owners at mozdev.org <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>
>>>        https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    --    Standard Ogame Project - StOgame
>>>    http://www.stogame.net
>>>    Making Ogame a better place...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Standard Ogame Project - StOgame
>>> http://www.stogame.net
>>> Making Ogame a better place...
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Project_owners mailing list
>>> Project_owners at mozdev.org
>>> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Project_owners mailing list
>> Project_owners at mozdev.org
>> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Standard Ogame Project - StOgame
> http://www.stogame.net
> Making Ogame a better place...
>
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
>


-- 
Cheers!
Shivanand Sharma
Editor: http://binaryturf.com
Technology, Design, Monetization
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080724/32be07dd/attachment-0001.html>

From jesper at heroes-addon.dk  Thu Jul 24 03:40:51 2008
From: jesper at heroes-addon.dk (Jesper Staun Hansen)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:40:51 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] send data to a web page and process it without
 loading to browser.
In-Reply-To: <b5a086e0807240337v4710af00vf0147b96e3de2dcf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e6956fe10807240120ua15332k92530a296e167021@mail.gmail.com>	<1a9fd9700807240143h5413ed2dh6249784300085c27@mail.gmail.com>	<e6956fe10807240214w45429acclcb550adb767b804e@mail.gmail.com>	<b5a086e0807240311m3183bb5dq75943de7e8fe7ff9@mail.gmail.com>	<b5a086e0807240317t51556a4aue51bf6d2d2ca2e2b@mail.gmail.com>	<48885878.3040305@heroes-addon.dk>
	<b5a086e0807240337v4710af00vf0147b96e3de2dcf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <48885C33.40102@heroes-addon.dk>

I was considering how firefox 2 handles it. Default setting to false or 
true?

Marco Pivetta wrote:
> From the MDC:
>
>
>       mozBackgroundRequest
>
> This property can be used to prevent authentication and bad 
> certificate dialogs from popping up for the request. Also the request 
> will not be canceled if the window it belongs to is closed. This 
> property works for chrome code only. New in Firefox 3 
> <http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Firefox_3_for_developers>
>
> There's nothing else about it :(
>
> 2008/7/24 Jesper Staun Hansen <jesper at heroes-addon.dk 
> <mailto:jesper at heroes-addon.dk>>:
>
>     Whats the story behind mozBackgroundRequest?
>
>     Marco Pivetta wrote:
>
>         Forgot to tell you that "req.mozBackgroundRequest=true;" works
>         with FF3 only ;)
>
>         2008/7/24 Marco Pivetta <ocramius at gmail.com
>         <mailto:ocramius at gmail.com> <mailto:ocramius at gmail.com
>         <mailto:ocramius at gmail.com>>>:
>
>
>            I use tons of AJAX in my StOgame Extension ;)
>
>            As an example:
>
>                    var req=new XMLHttpRequest();
>                    var postdata="l="+language+"&u="+universe; //MY DATA...
>                    req.mozBackgroundRequest=true; //REQUEST DOESN'T
>         GENERATE
>            POPUPS AND/OR CERTIFICATE AGREEMENTS ETC...
>                    req.onload=function()
>                        {
>            //CHECK READYSTATE
>                            if(
>                                (req.status==200)
>                                &&(req.readyState==4)
>                            )
>                            {
>            //CHECK IF PHP DIDNT CRASH XD
>                                if(parseInt(req.responseText)==1)
>                                {
>                                    var
>            expiration_timestamps=req.responseText.split(",");
>                                    var playerranksstatusupdate=AccountDB
>                                        .createStatement
>                                        (
>                                           //LET'S DO SOME COOL STUFF WITH
>            SQLite ;)
>                                        );
>                                           //ETC...
>                                  }
>                            }
>                            else
>                            {
>                                //ERROR: 404, PHP, SQL, ETC...
>                            }
>                        };
>                    req.onprogress=function(e)
>                        {
>                            //alert("position: "+e.position+"\nototalSize:
>            "+e.totalSize)
>                        };
>                    req.onreadystatechange=function()
>                        {
>                            //alert("readyState:
>         "+req.readyState+"\nstatus:
>            "+req.status);
>                        };
>                    req.onerror=function()
>                        {
>                            //alert("error!!!")
>                        };
>                    req.open('POST',
>          
>          "http://www.stogame.net/stogalaxy/test/rankupdatestatus.php",
>         true);
>                    
>          req.setRequestHeader('Content-Type','application/x-www-form-urlencoded');
>            //USED FOR POST DATA
>                    req.setRequestHeader("Content-length",
>         postdata.length);
>            //USED FOR POST DATA
>                    req.setRequestHeader("Connection", "close");
>                    req.send(postdata);
>                }
>
>            2008/7/24 Silver Surfer <silver.surfer444 at gmail.com
>         <mailto:silver.surfer444 at gmail.com>
>            <mailto:silver.surfer444 at gmail.com
>         <mailto:silver.surfer444 at gmail.com>>>:
>
>
>
>
>                        On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Shivanand
>         Sharma / Varun
>                <varun21 at gmail.com <mailto:varun21 at gmail.com>
>         <mailto:varun21 at gmail.com <mailto:varun21 at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
>                    use hidden iframe?
>
>                    On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Silver Surfer
>                    <silver.surfer444 at gmail.com
>         <mailto:silver.surfer444 at gmail.com>
>                    <mailto:silver.surfer444 at gmail.com
>         <mailto:silver.surfer444 at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
>                        Hi Friends,
>                        I'm developing an new extension and I need to send
>                        some data(user input) to a web page and do some
>                        processing in there without loading that web
>         page to
>                        the browser. ( The functionality I need is
>         similar to
>                        the functionality of delicious firefox extension. )
>                        But I still don't have an idea to call to
>         script in a
>                        web browser without loading it to the browser.
>         I would
>                        be very please if anyone of you can help me for
>         this
>                        problems.
>                                        thanks & regards,
>                        SS
>
>                        --                ~Silver Surfer~
>                        Surfing through time & space
>                        http://risingofsilversurfer.blogspot.com/
>
>                        _______________________________________________
>                        Project_owners mailing list
>                        Project_owners at mozdev.org
>         <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>
>                        <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org
>         <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>>
>
>                      
>          https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
>
>
>
>                    --            Cheers!
>                    Shivanand Sharma
>                    Editor: http://binaryturf.com <http://binaryturf.com/>
>
>                    Technology, Design, Monetization
>
>                    _______________________________________________
>                    Project_owners mailing list
>                    Project_owners at mozdev.org
>         <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>
>         <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org
>         <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>>
>
>                    https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
>
>                thanks Shivanand,
>                it's a good idea. But I have another idea, If we can
>         use AJAX
>                in developing firefox extensions, then I think I can do
>         what I
>                want.
>                        Can we use AJAX for developing extensions (
>         Most probably I
>                think we can, but need to confirm that idea).
>                If so I think I can call to a PHP page with relevant
>         user data
>                and do the processing of that data.
>                Am I correct friends?
>
>
>                --        ~Silver Surfer~
>                Surfing through time & space
>                http://risingofsilversurfer.blogspot.com/
>
>                _______________________________________________
>                Project_owners mailing list
>                Project_owners at mozdev.org
>         <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>
>         <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org
>         <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>>
>
>                https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
>
>
>
>            --    Standard Ogame Project - StOgame
>            http://www.stogame.net
>            Making Ogame a better place...
>
>
>
>
>         -- 
>         Standard Ogame Project - StOgame
>         http://www.stogame.net
>         Making Ogame a better place...
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Project_owners mailing list
>         Project_owners at mozdev.org <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>
>         https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>          
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Project_owners mailing list
>     Project_owners at mozdev.org <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>
>     https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Standard Ogame Project - StOgame
> http://www.stogame.net
> Making Ogame a better place...
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>   


From ocramius at gmail.com  Thu Jul 24 03:55:18 2008
From: ocramius at gmail.com (Marco Pivetta)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:55:18 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] send data to a web page and process it without
	loading to browser.
In-Reply-To: <48885C33.40102@heroes-addon.dk>
References: <e6956fe10807240120ua15332k92530a296e167021@mail.gmail.com>
	<1a9fd9700807240143h5413ed2dh6249784300085c27@mail.gmail.com>
	<e6956fe10807240214w45429acclcb550adb767b804e@mail.gmail.com>
	<b5a086e0807240311m3183bb5dq75943de7e8fe7ff9@mail.gmail.com>
	<b5a086e0807240317t51556a4aue51bf6d2d2ca2e2b@mail.gmail.com>
	<48885878.3040305@heroes-addon.dk>
	<b5a086e0807240337v4710af00vf0147b96e3de2dcf@mail.gmail.com>
	<48885C33.40102@heroes-addon.dk>
Message-ID: <b5a086e0807240355q4b869175qdd25c36350387989@mail.gmail.com>

Default is false, of course ;)
Try making an XMLHttpRequest to
https://mysqladmin.helloweb.eu/index.php(should have a bad certificate
:S). Mozilla should stop it.
If mozBackgroundRequest is set to true then security checks should be
ignored ;)

2008/7/24 Jesper Staun Hansen <jesper at heroes-addon.dk>:

> I was considering how firefox 2 handles it. Default setting to false or
> true?
>
> Marco Pivetta wrote:
>
>> From the MDC:
>>
>>
>>      mozBackgroundRequest
>>
>> This property can be used to prevent authentication and bad certificate
>> dialogs from popping up for the request. Also the request will not be
>> canceled if the window it belongs to is closed. This property works for
>> chrome code only. New in Firefox 3 <
>> http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Firefox_3_for_developers>
>>
>> There's nothing else about it :(
>>
>> 2008/7/24 Jesper Staun Hansen <jesper at heroes-addon.dk <mailto:
>> jesper at heroes-addon.dk>>:
>>
>>    Whats the story behind mozBackgroundRequest?
>>
>>    Marco Pivetta wrote:
>>
>>        Forgot to tell you that "req.mozBackgroundRequest=true;" works
>>        with FF3 only ;)
>>
>>        2008/7/24 Marco Pivetta <ocramius at gmail.com
>>        <mailto:ocramius at gmail.com> <mailto:ocramius at gmail.com
>>
>>        <mailto:ocramius at gmail.com>>>:
>>
>>
>>           I use tons of AJAX in my StOgame Extension ;)
>>
>>           As an example:
>>
>>                   var req=new XMLHttpRequest();
>>                   var postdata="l="+language+"&u="+universe; //MY DATA...
>>                   req.mozBackgroundRequest=true; //REQUEST DOESN'T
>>        GENERATE
>>           POPUPS AND/OR CERTIFICATE AGREEMENTS ETC...
>>                   req.onload=function()
>>                       {
>>           //CHECK READYSTATE
>>                           if(
>>                               (req.status==200)
>>                               &&(req.readyState==4)
>>                           )
>>                           {
>>           //CHECK IF PHP DIDNT CRASH XD
>>                               if(parseInt(req.responseText)==1)
>>                               {
>>                                   var
>>           expiration_timestamps=req.responseText.split(",");
>>                                   var playerranksstatusupdate=AccountDB
>>                                       .createStatement
>>                                       (
>>                                          //LET'S DO SOME COOL STUFF WITH
>>           SQLite ;)
>>                                       );
>>                                          //ETC...
>>                                 }
>>                           }
>>                           else
>>                           {
>>                               //ERROR: 404, PHP, SQL, ETC...
>>                           }
>>                       };
>>                   req.onprogress=function(e)
>>                       {
>>                           //alert("position: "+e.position+"\nototalSize:
>>           "+e.totalSize)
>>                       };
>>                   req.onreadystatechange=function()
>>                       {
>>                           //alert("readyState:
>>        "+req.readyState+"\nstatus:
>>           "+req.status);
>>                       };
>>                   req.onerror=function()
>>                       {
>>                           //alert("error!!!")
>>                       };
>>                   req.open('POST',
>>                 "
>> http://www.stogame.net/stogalaxy/test/rankupdatestatus.php",
>>        true);
>>
>> req.setRequestHeader('Content-Type','application/x-www-form-urlencoded');
>>           //USED FOR POST DATA
>>                   req.setRequestHeader("Content-length",
>>        postdata.length);
>>           //USED FOR POST DATA
>>                   req.setRequestHeader("Connection", "close");
>>                   req.send(postdata);
>>               }
>>
>>           2008/7/24 Silver Surfer <silver.surfer444 at gmail.com
>>        <mailto:silver.surfer444 at gmail.com>
>>           <mailto:silver.surfer444 at gmail.com
>>        <mailto:silver.surfer444 at gmail.com>>>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>                       On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Shivanand
>>        Sharma / Varun
>>               <varun21 at gmail.com <mailto:varun21 at gmail.com>
>>        <mailto:varun21 at gmail.com <mailto:varun21 at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>
>>                   use hidden iframe?
>>
>>                   On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Silver Surfer
>>                   <silver.surfer444 at gmail.com
>>        <mailto:silver.surfer444 at gmail.com>
>>                   <mailto:silver.surfer444 at gmail.com
>>        <mailto:silver.surfer444 at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>
>>                       Hi Friends,
>>                       I'm developing an new extension and I need to send
>>                       some data(user input) to a web page and do some
>>                       processing in there without loading that web
>>        page to
>>                       the browser. ( The functionality I need is
>>        similar to
>>                       the functionality of delicious firefox extension. )
>>                       But I still don't have an idea to call to
>>        script in a
>>                       web browser without loading it to the browser.
>>        I would
>>                       be very please if anyone of you can help me for
>>        this
>>                       problems.
>>                                       thanks & regards,
>>                       SS
>>
>>                       --                ~Silver Surfer~
>>                       Surfing through time & space
>>                       http://risingofsilversurfer.blogspot.com/
>>
>>                       _______________________________________________
>>                       Project_owners mailing list
>>                       Project_owners at mozdev.org
>>        <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>
>>                       <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org
>>        <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>                   --            Cheers!
>>                   Shivanand Sharma
>>                   Editor: http://binaryturf.com <http://binaryturf.com/>
>>
>>                   Technology, Design, Monetization
>>
>>                   _______________________________________________
>>                   Project_owners mailing list
>>                   Project_owners at mozdev.org
>>        <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>
>>        <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org
>>        <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>>
>>
>>                   https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>
>>
>>               thanks Shivanand,
>>               it's a good idea. But I have another idea, If we can
>>        use AJAX
>>               in developing firefox extensions, then I think I can do
>>        what I
>>               want.
>>                       Can we use AJAX for developing extensions (
>>        Most probably I
>>               think we can, but need to confirm that idea).
>>               If so I think I can call to a PHP page with relevant
>>        user data
>>               and do the processing of that data.
>>               Am I correct friends?
>>
>>
>>               --        ~Silver Surfer~
>>               Surfing through time & space
>>               http://risingofsilversurfer.blogspot.com/
>>
>>               _______________________________________________
>>               Project_owners mailing list
>>               Project_owners at mozdev.org
>>        <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>
>>        <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org
>>        <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>>
>>
>>               https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>           --    Standard Ogame Project - StOgame
>>           http://www.stogame.net
>>           Making Ogame a better place...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>        --        Standard Ogame Project - StOgame
>>        http://www.stogame.net
>>        Making Ogame a better place...
>>
>>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>        _______________________________________________
>>        Project_owners mailing list
>>        Project_owners at mozdev.org <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>
>>        https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>
>>
>>    _______________________________________________
>>    Project_owners mailing list
>>    Project_owners at mozdev.org <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>
>>    https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Standard Ogame Project - StOgame
>> http://www.stogame.net
>> Making Ogame a better place...
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Project_owners mailing list
>> Project_owners at mozdev.org
>> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>



-- 
Standard Ogame Project - StOgame
http://www.stogame.net
Making Ogame a better place...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080724/4d383cc1/attachment-0001.html>

From ocramius at gmail.com  Thu Jul 24 03:57:34 2008
From: ocramius at gmail.com (Marco Pivetta)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:57:34 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] send data to a web page and process it without
	loading to browser.
In-Reply-To: <b5a086e0807240355q4b869175qdd25c36350387989@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e6956fe10807240120ua15332k92530a296e167021@mail.gmail.com>
	<1a9fd9700807240143h5413ed2dh6249784300085c27@mail.gmail.com>
	<e6956fe10807240214w45429acclcb550adb767b804e@mail.gmail.com>
	<b5a086e0807240311m3183bb5dq75943de7e8fe7ff9@mail.gmail.com>
	<b5a086e0807240317t51556a4aue51bf6d2d2ca2e2b@mail.gmail.com>
	<48885878.3040305@heroes-addon.dk>
	<b5a086e0807240337v4710af00vf0147b96e3de2dcf@mail.gmail.com>
	<48885C33.40102@heroes-addon.dk>
	<b5a086e0807240355q4b869175qdd25c36350387989@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b5a086e0807240357g733aed31wde4cacaf894c45c8@mail.gmail.com>

Oh, sorry, didn't understand you were talking about FF2... FF2 does not
consider this value. It's always false and bad XMLHttpRequests should cause
popups/stop.

2008/7/24 Marco Pivetta <ocramius at gmail.com>:

> Default is false, of course ;)
> Try making an XMLHttpRequest to https://mysqladmin.helloweb.eu/index.php(should have a bad certificate :S). Mozilla should stop it.
> If mozBackgroundRequest is set to true then security checks should be
> ignored ;)
>
> 2008/7/24 Jesper Staun Hansen <jesper at heroes-addon.dk>:
>
> I was considering how firefox 2 handles it. Default setting to false or
>> true?
>>
>> Marco Pivetta wrote:
>>
>>> From the MDC:
>>>
>>>
>>>      mozBackgroundRequest
>>>
>>> This property can be used to prevent authentication and bad certificate
>>> dialogs from popping up for the request. Also the request will not be
>>> canceled if the window it belongs to is closed. This property works for
>>> chrome code only. New in Firefox 3 <
>>> http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Firefox_3_for_developers>
>>>
>>> There's nothing else about it :(
>>>
>>> 2008/7/24 Jesper Staun Hansen <jesper at heroes-addon.dk <mailto:
>>> jesper at heroes-addon.dk>>:
>>>
>>>    Whats the story behind mozBackgroundRequest?
>>>
>>>    Marco Pivetta wrote:
>>>
>>>        Forgot to tell you that "req.mozBackgroundRequest=true;" works
>>>        with FF3 only ;)
>>>
>>>        2008/7/24 Marco Pivetta <ocramius at gmail.com
>>>        <mailto:ocramius at gmail.com> <mailto:ocramius at gmail.com
>>>
>>>        <mailto:ocramius at gmail.com>>>:
>>>
>>>
>>>           I use tons of AJAX in my StOgame Extension ;)
>>>
>>>           As an example:
>>>
>>>                   var req=new XMLHttpRequest();
>>>                   var postdata="l="+language+"&u="+universe; //MY DATA...
>>>                   req.mozBackgroundRequest=true; //REQUEST DOESN'T
>>>        GENERATE
>>>           POPUPS AND/OR CERTIFICATE AGREEMENTS ETC...
>>>                   req.onload=function()
>>>                       {
>>>           //CHECK READYSTATE
>>>                           if(
>>>                               (req.status==200)
>>>                               &&(req.readyState==4)
>>>                           )
>>>                           {
>>>           //CHECK IF PHP DIDNT CRASH XD
>>>                               if(parseInt(req.responseText)==1)
>>>                               {
>>>                                   var
>>>           expiration_timestamps=req.responseText.split(",");
>>>                                   var playerranksstatusupdate=AccountDB
>>>                                       .createStatement
>>>                                       (
>>>                                          //LET'S DO SOME COOL STUFF WITH
>>>           SQLite ;)
>>>                                       );
>>>                                          //ETC...
>>>                                 }
>>>                           }
>>>                           else
>>>                           {
>>>                               //ERROR: 404, PHP, SQL, ETC...
>>>                           }
>>>                       };
>>>                   req.onprogress=function(e)
>>>                       {
>>>                           //alert("position: "+e.position+"\nototalSize:
>>>           "+e.totalSize)
>>>                       };
>>>                   req.onreadystatechange=function()
>>>                       {
>>>                           //alert("readyState:
>>>        "+req.readyState+"\nstatus:
>>>           "+req.status);
>>>                       };
>>>                   req.onerror=function()
>>>                       {
>>>                           //alert("error!!!")
>>>                       };
>>>                   req.open('POST',
>>>                 "
>>> http://www.stogame.net/stogalaxy/test/rankupdatestatus.php",
>>>        true);
>>>
>>> req.setRequestHeader('Content-Type','application/x-www-form-urlencoded');
>>>           //USED FOR POST DATA
>>>                   req.setRequestHeader("Content-length",
>>>        postdata.length);
>>>           //USED FOR POST DATA
>>>                   req.setRequestHeader("Connection", "close");
>>>                   req.send(postdata);
>>>               }
>>>
>>>           2008/7/24 Silver Surfer <silver.surfer444 at gmail.com
>>>        <mailto:silver.surfer444 at gmail.com>
>>>           <mailto:silver.surfer444 at gmail.com
>>>        <mailto:silver.surfer444 at gmail.com>>>:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>                       On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Shivanand
>>>        Sharma / Varun
>>>               <varun21 at gmail.com <mailto:varun21 at gmail.com>
>>>        <mailto:varun21 at gmail.com <mailto:varun21 at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>                   use hidden iframe?
>>>
>>>                   On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Silver Surfer
>>>                   <silver.surfer444 at gmail.com
>>>        <mailto:silver.surfer444 at gmail.com>
>>>                   <mailto:silver.surfer444 at gmail.com
>>>        <mailto:silver.surfer444 at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>                       Hi Friends,
>>>                       I'm developing an new extension and I need to send
>>>                       some data(user input) to a web page and do some
>>>                       processing in there without loading that web
>>>        page to
>>>                       the browser. ( The functionality I need is
>>>        similar to
>>>                       the functionality of delicious firefox extension. )
>>>                       But I still don't have an idea to call to
>>>        script in a
>>>                       web browser without loading it to the browser.
>>>        I would
>>>                       be very please if anyone of you can help me for
>>>        this
>>>                       problems.
>>>                                       thanks & regards,
>>>                       SS
>>>
>>>                       --                ~Silver Surfer~
>>>                       Surfing through time & space
>>>                       http://risingofsilversurfer.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>>                       _______________________________________________
>>>                       Project_owners mailing list
>>>                       Project_owners at mozdev.org
>>>        <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>
>>>                       <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org
>>>        <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>                   --            Cheers!
>>>                   Shivanand Sharma
>>>                   Editor: http://binaryturf.com <http://binaryturf.com/>
>>>
>>>                   Technology, Design, Monetization
>>>
>>>                   _______________________________________________
>>>                   Project_owners mailing list
>>>                   Project_owners at mozdev.org
>>>        <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>
>>>        <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org
>>>        <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>>
>>>
>>>                   https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>>
>>>
>>>               thanks Shivanand,
>>>               it's a good idea. But I have another idea, If we can
>>>        use AJAX
>>>               in developing firefox extensions, then I think I can do
>>>        what I
>>>               want.
>>>                       Can we use AJAX for developing extensions (
>>>        Most probably I
>>>               think we can, but need to confirm that idea).
>>>               If so I think I can call to a PHP page with relevant
>>>        user data
>>>               and do the processing of that data.
>>>               Am I correct friends?
>>>
>>>
>>>               --        ~Silver Surfer~
>>>               Surfing through time & space
>>>               http://risingofsilversurfer.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>>               _______________________________________________
>>>               Project_owners mailing list
>>>               Project_owners at mozdev.org
>>>        <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>
>>>        <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org
>>>        <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>>
>>>
>>>               https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>           --    Standard Ogame Project - StOgame
>>>           http://www.stogame.net
>>>           Making Ogame a better place...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        --        Standard Ogame Project - StOgame
>>>        http://www.stogame.net
>>>        Making Ogame a better place...
>>>
>>>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        _______________________________________________
>>>        Project_owners mailing list
>>>        Project_owners at mozdev.org <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>
>>>        https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>>
>>>
>>>    _______________________________________________
>>>    Project_owners mailing list
>>>    Project_owners at mozdev.org <mailto:Project_owners at mozdev.org>
>>>    https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Standard Ogame Project - StOgame
>>> http://www.stogame.net
>>> Making Ogame a better place...
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Project_owners mailing list
>>> Project_owners at mozdev.org
>>> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Project_owners mailing list
>> Project_owners at mozdev.org
>> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Standard Ogame Project - StOgame
> http://www.stogame.net
> Making Ogame a better place...
>



-- 
Standard Ogame Project - StOgame
http://www.stogame.net
Making Ogame a better place...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080724/a8b5dd5a/attachment-0001.html>

From paul at roub.net  Thu Jul 24 10:36:30 2008
From: paul at roub.net (Paul Roub)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:36:30 -0500
Subject: [Project_owners] Feeling pretty dumb now...
In-Reply-To: <200807232053.59757.evan_eveland@nycap.rr.com>
References: <200807232053.59757.evan_eveland@nycap.rr.com>
Message-ID: <4888BD9E.4040404@roub.net>

> I've got a dumb problem.  I never updated my email address on 
> https://addons.mozilla.org when I changed ISPs.  I'm now unable to log in to 
> do the version update as I forgot the password.  I was using 
> evan_evelandATearthlinkDOTnet, now I'm with RoadRunner so it's 
> evan_evelandATnycapDOTrrDOTcom...  I still have CVS access at mozdev and have 
> updated over there.  Is there a way to get the password reset? If not, should 
> I create a new login and add the new version? 
> 

I would strongly recommend asking this same question on #amo on 
irc.mozilla.org

Those are the folks best prepared to (a) handle the problem quickly and 
(b) know how it's been handled in the past.

-paul




From evan_eveland at nycap.rr.com  Thu Jul 24 13:17:45 2008
From: evan_eveland at nycap.rr.com (Evan Eveland)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:17:45 -0400
Subject: [Project_owners] Feeling pretty dumb now...
In-Reply-To: <4888BD9E.4040404@roub.net>
References: <200807232053.59757.evan_eveland@nycap.rr.com>
	<4888BD9E.4040404@roub.net>
Message-ID: <200807241617.45726.evan_eveland@nycap.rr.com>

!0 mins on irc  and I'm all set.  Thanks again!

w00t!
Evan

On Thursday 24 July 2008 1:36:30 pm Paul Roub wrote:
> > I've got a dumb problem.  I never updated my email address on
> > https://addons.mozilla.org when I changed ISPs.  I'm now unable to log in
> > to do the version update as I forgot the password.  I was using
> > evan_evelandATearthlinkDOTnet, now I'm with RoadRunner so it's
> > evan_evelandATnycapDOTrrDOTcom...  I still have CVS access at mozdev and
> > have updated over there.  Is there a way to get the password reset? If
> > not, should I create a new login and add the new version?
>
> I would strongly recommend asking this same question on #amo on
> irc.mozilla.org
>
> Those are the folks best prepared to (a) handle the problem quickly and
> (b) know how it's been handled in the past.
>
> -paul
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners



From eric.jung at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 24 17:40:18 2008
From: eric.jung at yahoo.com (Eric H. Jung)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:40:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Project_owners] Birds of a Feather Review
Message-ID: <617863.1567.qm@web30307.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hi,

The BOF at OSCON 2008 yesterday went very well. Read more about it here:
http://www.mozdev.org/drupal/blog/Birds-Feather-Review

Eric & Brian


      

From axel at pike.org  Fri Jul 25 01:08:07 2008
From: axel at pike.org (Axel Hecht)
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:08:07 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] Transfering project ownership for unreachable
	project owners
In-Reply-To: <mailman.309.1216759065.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
References: <200807221255.48042.silfreed@silfreed.net>
	<mailman.309.1216759065.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g6c1go$1kit$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

massey wrote:
> I would think in a case like that you at least make a backup that could 
> be kept for some(long) period of time. The person may get out of jail or 
> something and want to pick where he/she left off. The thing is it's 
> someones work and who knows the circumstances.
> 

That sounds like a good thing no matter why one couldn't reach the owner.

I wonder if we could page on planet.mozilla.org for folks that have 
bouncing emails. Just a short single post like "Mozdev admins page John 
Doe, owner if stale.mozdev.org. We have failed to find a working email, 
so if you're John or know him, please get in touch with ..."

Axel

From alta88 at gmail.com  Sat Jul 26 11:44:55 2008
From: alta88 at gmail.com (alta88[nntp])
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:44:55 -0600
Subject: [Project_owners] extraneous files in cvs source dir
Message-ID: <g6frb9$292o$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>


in setting up my extension source on mozdev, and hacking around in 
eclipse, i left a bunch of files on mozdev that i can't seem to get rid 
of.  synchronizing and committing again doesn't get rid of files removed 
from my local project.  does attic leave them there forever or do 
'attic' files eventually get removed?  can i get rid of stuff on mozdev 
another way?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080726/1227a379/attachment.html>

From philip.chee at gmail.com  Sat Jul 26 20:38:27 2008
From: philip.chee at gmail.com (Philip Chee)
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 11:38:27 +0800
Subject: [Project_owners] extraneous files in cvs source dir
In-Reply-To: <g6frb9$292o$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <g6frb9$292o$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g6gqis$234v$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:44:55 -0600, alta88[nntp] wrote:

> in setting up my extension source on mozdev, and hacking around in 
> eclipse, i left a bunch of files on mozdev that i can't seem to get rid 
> of.  synchronizing and committing again doesn't get rid of files removed 
> from my local project.  does attic leave them there forever or do 

"attic" is where deleted files go. I mean how else can you access a
deleted file?

> 'attic' files eventually get removed?  can i get rid of stuff on mozdev 
> another way?

In the highly unlikely event that you can get an admin password to the
server hosting mozdev's CVS you could login and do some surgery on the
actual repository, but if you mess up, be prepared to be hung and quartered.

Phil

-- 
Philip Chee <philip at aleytys.pc.my>, <philip.chee at gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
[ ]This reply was foil wrapped for maximum freshness
* TagZilla 0.066.6


From eric.jung at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 27 00:26:48 2008
From: eric.jung at yahoo.com (Eric H. Jung)
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 00:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Project_owners] Transfering project ownership for unreachable
	project owners
Message-ID: <92680.97389.qm@web30305.mail.mud.yahoo.com>





----- Original Message ----
> From: Axel Hecht <axel at pike.org>


> I wonder if we could page on planet.mozilla.org for folks that have 
> bouncing emails. Just a short single post like "Mozdev admins page John 
> Doe, owner if stale.mozdev.org. We have failed to find a working email, 
> so if you're John or know him, please get in touch with ..."

I think we should also add an optional "phone" field to the contact info a project owner provides when signing up.


      

From silfreed at silfreed.net  Sun Jul 27 00:37:29 2008
From: silfreed at silfreed.net (Douglas E. Warner)
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 00:37:29 -0700
Subject: [Project_owners] extraneous files in cvs source dir
In-Reply-To: <g6frb9$292o$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <g6frb9$292o$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <200807270037.29620.silfreed@silfreed.net>

On Saturday 26 July 2008 11:44:55 alta88[nntp] wrote:
> in setting up my extension source on mozdev, and hacking around in eclipse,
> i left a bunch of files on mozdev that i can't seem to get rid of.?
> synchronizing and committing again doesn't get rid of files removed from my
> local project.? does attic leave them there forever or do 'attic' files
> eventually get removed?? can i get rid of stuff on mozdev another way?

The attic files stay forever in the repository; they won't show up in your 
working copy, though.  This is just how CVS handles deleted files.

Mozdev does offer Mercurial now if you're interested in that; it has much 
better support for deleting directories and files as well as moving files 
around and renaming.

If you would like some surgery to be done to your CVS tree or are interested 
in Mercurial feel free to file a bug from the feedback page [1].

-Doug

[1] http://www.mozdev.org/feedback.html

-- 
Douglas E. Warner    <silfreed at silfreed.net>    Site Developer
Mozdev.org           http://www.mozdev.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080727/0b15f3f5/attachment.bin>

From philip.chee at gmail.com  Sun Jul 27 04:39:53 2008
From: philip.chee at gmail.com (Philip Chee)
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 19:39:53 +0800
Subject: [Project_owners] Transfering project ownership for unreachable
	project owners
In-Reply-To: <mailman.362.1217143616.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
References: <mailman.362.1217143616.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g6hmpd$240i$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 00:26:48 -0700 (PDT), Eric H. Jung wrote:
>> From: Axel Hecht <axel at pike.org>

>> I wonder if we could page on planet.mozilla.org for folks that have
>>  bouncing emails. Just a short single post like "Mozdev admins page
>> John Doe, owner if stale.mozdev.org. We have failed to find a
>> working email, so if you're John or know him, please get in touch
>> with ..."

> I think we should also add an optional "phone" field to the contact
> info a project owner provides when signing up.

And ICQ and AIM and Facebook/Myspace/Beebo ...

Phil

-- 
Philip Chee <philip at aleytys.pc.my>, <philip.chee at gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
[ ]How do I set my phaser to tickle?
* TagZilla 0.066.6


From alta88 at gmail.com  Sun Jul 27 08:12:56 2008
From: alta88 at gmail.com (alta88[nntp])
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 09:12:56 -0600
Subject: [Project_owners] cvs access errors when tagging version
Message-ID: <g6i39p$993$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

i get this when tagging the entire project:

***
cvs version
    Concurrent Versions System (CVS) 1.11.11 (Hovercraft) (client/server)
ok (took 0:00.481)
***

***
cvs tag "/totaltoolbar/TT-1_4" "/totaltoolbar"
    cvs tag: User 'alta88' cannot access src/chrome
    cvs tag: User 'alta88' cannot access src/chrome/locale
    cvs tag: User 'alta88' cannot access src/chrome/skin
    cvs tag: User 'alta88' cannot access src/defaults
    cvs [tag aborted]: correct the above errors first!
The server reported an error while performing the "cvs tag" command. 
(took 0:01.983)
   Error: totaltoolbar: cvs tag: User 'alta88' cannot access src/chrome
   Error: totaltoolbar: cvs tag: User 'alta88' cannot access 
src/chrome/locale
   Error: totaltoolbar: cvs tag: User 'alta88' cannot access src/chrome/skin
   Error: totaltoolbar: cvs tag: User 'alta88' cannot access src/defaults
   Error: totaltoolbar: cvs [tag aborted]: correct the above errors first!
***

this is all philip chee's fault ;D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080727/7271838c/attachment.html>

From philip.chee at gmail.com  Sun Jul 27 09:10:27 2008
From: philip.chee at gmail.com (Philip Chee)
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:10:27 +0800
Subject: [Project_owners] cvs access errors when tagging version
In-Reply-To: <g6i39p$993$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <g6i39p$993$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g6i6kp$j4b$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 09:12:56 -0600, alta88[nntp] wrote:

> this is all philip chee's fault ;D

Har Har. Consider yourself lucky.

I needed to generate a patch against SeaMonkey (Mercurial) trunk so I
had to:

hg clone http://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/
hg clone http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/
python client.py checkout

Which ate up 0.5GB of disk space. And all just so I could do "hg diff -U8".

Phil

-- 
Philip Chee <philip at aleytys.pc.my>, <philip.chee at gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
[ ]I'm really sorry about always saying I'm really sorry.
* TagZilla 0.066.6


From silfreed at silfreed.net  Sun Jul 27 09:16:19 2008
From: silfreed at silfreed.net (Douglas E. Warner)
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 09:16:19 -0700
Subject: [Project_owners] cvs access errors when tagging version
In-Reply-To: <g6i39p$993$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <g6i39p$993$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <200807270916.19985.silfreed@silfreed.net>

On Sunday 27 July 2008 08:12:56 alta88[nntp] wrote:
>  cvs tag "/totaltoolbar/TT-1_4" "/totaltoolbar"

I don't think you can have slashes in your tag command.  Try the following 
instead from your working directory:

cvs tag TT-1_4

or:

cvs tag TT-1_4 src/

-Doug

-- 
Douglas E. Warner    <silfreed at silfreed.net>    Site Developer
Mozdev.org           http://www.mozdev.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080727/55a4b5f2/attachment.bin>

From alta88 at gmail.com  Sun Jul 27 10:13:30 2008
From: alta88 at gmail.com (alta88[nntp])
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 11:13:30 -0600
Subject: [Project_owners] cvs access errors when tagging version
In-Reply-To: <mailman.367.1217175387.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
References: <g6i39p$993$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<mailman.367.1217175387.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g6iabq$unl$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>




---On 2008.Jul.27 10:16 AM, Douglas E. Warner wrote:
> On Sunday 27 July 2008 08:12:56 alta88[nntp] wrote:
>   
>>  cvs tag "/totaltoolbar/TT-1_4" "/totaltoolbar"
>>     
>
> I don't think you can have slashes in your tag command.  Try the following 
> instead from your working directory:
>
> cvs tag TT-1_4
>
> or:
>
> cvs tag TT-1_4 src/
>
> -Doug
>
>   

i was going about it wrong in eclipse, fixed.  thanks again doug.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080727/3081b33d/attachment.html>

From brian at mozdev.org  Sun Jul 27 19:27:08 2008
From: brian at mozdev.org (Brian King)
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 19:27:08 -0700
Subject: [Project_owners] AMO : Improving the Review/Editorial Process
In-Reply-To: <487CD254.5080809@mozdev.org>
References: <487CD254.5080809@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <488D2E7C.8030709@mozdev.org>

Thanks everyone for their contributions so far. I have done a raw dump 
of what I have found so far:

http://www.mozdev.org/drupal/wiki/AMO-Making-Things-Better

If I missed something let me know, or just edit the page and add 
yourself. Keep the ideas coming. I will clean it up and add more content 
soon.

- Brian

Brian King wrote:
> There has been a lot of talk about this in recent threads, so I have a 
> proposal.
> 
> The upcoming Firefox Summit has a few AMO talks on the schedule:
> 
> http://wiki.mozilla.org/Summit2008/Sessions/Schedule
> 
> One of them is titled just AMO: Editorial Process, which I believe will 
> be a banging of heads to come up with ways to improve things. This is 
> one of the high priorities at AMO.
> 
> So what I would like you to do is reply to this post with your ideas on 
> how to improve the process. I will then compile a list and present it at 
> the summit. I might also blog about it. Even if some of the ideas are 
> followed through on, that would be a step in the right direction.
> 
> Put your ideas into 3 separate categories:
> 
> 1) General : What the pain points are for you, and a proposal on how to 
> fix/improve. Let's focus on the review process, but site bugs can be 
> included.
> 2) Feature Requests : Things you would like to see (or removed) on the 
> site.
> 3) Mozdev ties : Ideas on how Mozdev could integrate with AMO.
> 
> Guidelines:
> 
> - Be constructive!
> - Keep each entry short. One liners where possible.
> - Cite bugs if they exist.
> - Do not follow-up on any ideas proposed, especially to knock it down. 
> The exception might be to clarify a broken link or cite a bug. You can 
> open a new thread if you like to start a discussion on a particular 
> feature. Let's work on the assumption that all ideas are good ideas for 
> now.
> 
> Thanks,
> - Brian
> 


From alta88 at gmail.com  Sun Jul 27 20:04:46 2008
From: alta88 at gmail.com (alta88[nntp])
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 21:04:46 -0600
Subject: [Project_owners] extraneous files in cvs source dir
In-Reply-To: <mailman.363.1217144259.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
References: <g6frb9$292o$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<mailman.363.1217144259.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g6jd0g$150n$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>




---On 2008.Jul.27 01:37 AM, Douglas E. Warner wrote:
> On Saturday 26 July 2008 11:44:55 alta88[nntp] wrote:
>   
>> in setting up my extension source on mozdev, and hacking around in eclipse,
>> i left a bunch of files on mozdev that i can't seem to get rid of.?
>> synchronizing and committing again doesn't get rid of files removed from my
>> local project.? does attic leave them there forever or do 'attic' files
>> eventually get removed?? can i get rid of stuff on mozdev another way?
>>     
>
> The attic files stay forever in the repository; they won't show up in your 
> working copy, though.  This is just how CVS handles deleted files.
>
> Mozdev does offer Mercurial now if you're interested in that; it has much 
> better support for deleting directories and files as well as moving files 
> around and renaming.
>
> If you would like some surgery to be done to your CVS tree or are interested 
> in Mercurial feel free to file a bug from the feedback page [1].
>
> -Doug
>
> [1] http://www.mozdev.org/feedback.html
>
>   

yes i would like to go to mercurial (seems the thing to do lately), but 
need to understand it with eclipse (a cursory look at the plugin for 
mercurial doesn't make me very warm and fuzzy).  also, unless the entire 
project (download and www) goes there as als0, it seems to make less 
sense to rush in..

but with fx and now tb/sm in mercurial, it has to be figured out tools 
wise, otherwise the joy of submitting patches and being stuck in review 
purgatory/hades/non-nirvana will be reduced.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080727/f2be2e65/attachment.html>

From massey at stlouis-shopper.com  Tue Jul 29 13:54:37 2008
From: massey at stlouis-shopper.com (massey)
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:54:37 -0500
Subject: [Project_owners] Projects overview page
Message-ID: <488F838D.9000307@stlouis-shopper.com>

Hi, I dont follow all discussions here so forgive me if this has already 
been covered:
I notice that on the https://www.mozdev.org/projects/overview/kiosk/ 
page goes to something other than the kiosk pages(not one I knew existed 
anyway) and this page gives the impression that no files have been 
released and no downloads available. I guess it would be just fine if 
the download link showed(or went to) the downloads - I assume this is an 
error? How might I edit this page or just have it point to the kiosk 
project here?

Thanks

Jim

From silfreed at silfreed.net  Tue Jul 29 15:00:24 2008
From: silfreed at silfreed.net (Douglas E. Warner)
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:00:24 -0700
Subject: [Project_owners] Projects overview page
In-Reply-To: <488F838D.9000307@stlouis-shopper.com>
References: <488F838D.9000307@stlouis-shopper.com>
Message-ID: <200807291500.28722.silfreed@silfreed.net>

On Tuesday 29 July 2008 13:54:37 massey wrote:
> Hi, I dont follow all discussions here so forgive me if this has already
> been covered:
> I notice that on the https://www.mozdev.org/projects/overview/kiosk/
> page goes to something other than the kiosk pages(not one I knew existed
> anyway) and this page gives the impression that no files have been
> released and no downloads available. I guess it would be just fine if
> the download link showed(or went to) the downloads - I assume this is an
> error? How might I edit this page or just have it point to the kiosk
> project here?

To release files you'll need to use the file management tool [1] 
(documentation [2]).

We don't want to link to the list of download files since this is likely to 
overwhelm users.

-Doug

[1] https://www.mozdev.org/profile/file_management.html
[2] http://www.mozdev.org/drupal/wiki/MozdevDownloadReleases

-- 
Douglas E. Warner    <silfreed at silfreed.net>    Site Developer
Mozdev.org           http://www.mozdev.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080729/df8ee2fd/attachment.bin>

From massey at stlouis-shopper.com  Wed Jul 30 05:22:44 2008
From: massey at stlouis-shopper.com (massey)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:22:44 -0500
Subject: [Project_owners] Projects overview page
In-Reply-To: <200807291500.28722.silfreed@silfreed.net>
References: <488F838D.9000307@stlouis-shopper.com>
	<200807291500.28722.silfreed@silfreed.net>
Message-ID: <48905D14.7010204@stlouis-shopper.com>



Douglas E. Warner wrote:

>On Tuesday 29 July 2008 13:54:37 massey wrote:
>  
>
>>Hi, I dont follow all discussions here so forgive me if this has already
>>been covered:
>>I notice that on the https://www.mozdev.org/projects/overview/kiosk/
>>page goes to something other than the kiosk pages(not one I knew existed
>>anyway) and this page gives the impression that no files have been
>>released and no downloads available. I guess it would be just fine if
>>the download link showed(or went to) the downloads - I assume this is an
>>error? How might I edit this page or just have it point to the kiosk
>>project here?
>>    
>>
>
>To release files you'll need to use the file management tool [1] 
>(documentation [2]).
>
>We don't want to link to the list of download files since this is likely to 
>overwhelm users.
>
>-Doug
>
>[1] https://www.mozdev.org/profile/file_management.html
>[2] http://www.mozdev.org/drupal/wiki/MozdevDownloadReleases
>
>  
>
>  
>
I'm sorry but there seems to be no way to 'release' my browser( 
http://downloads.mozdev.org/kiosk/kiosk-2.0.0.5pre.en-US.linux-i686.tar.gz )
via the file management interface so it shows up on the 
https://www.mozdev.org/projects/overview/kiosk/ page. That interface 
seems to only be usefull for addons/extensions(xpi's and zip's). Maybe 
I'm missing something? Is there a way for me to edit that page( 
https://www.mozdev.org/projects/overview/kiosk/ ) so that users dont 
think there are no items for download for my project?

I also notice that this seems to affect many projects that have not yet 
used the file managment interface. Maybe it can be made so that if no 
'release' has been made then a link on the 'active' or 'inactive' will 
just take the user to the projects home page instead of telling 
(potential) users that nothing has been released for a given project?

Thanks

Jim

>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Project_owners mailing list
>Project_owners at mozdev.org
>https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>  
>

From philip.chee at gmail.com  Wed Jul 30 05:20:52 2008
From: philip.chee at gmail.com (Philip Chee)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:20:52 +0800
Subject: [Project_owners] Projects overview page
In-Reply-To: <mailman.387.1217368842.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
References: <488F838D.9000307@stlouis-shopper.com>
	<mailman.387.1217368842.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g6pma6$p3r$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:00:24 -0700, Douglas E. Warner wrote:

> To release files you'll need to use the file management tool [1] 
> (documentation [2]).

I can't release any files in the flashblock project because when I go to
the management page, the dropdown shows console2 and xsidebar as the
only choices. The Flashblock project owner (Ted) emailed you several
months ago to say that I should have access, but to date I still can't
do anything about this.

Phil

-- 
Philip Chee <philip at aleytys.pc.my>, <philip.chee at gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
[ ]Ayer ago i kuldnt spel progrmr, now i are won!!
* TagZilla 0.066.6


From silfreed at silfreed.net  Wed Jul 30 08:48:19 2008
From: silfreed at silfreed.net (Douglas E. Warner)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:48:19 -0700
Subject: [Project_owners] Projects overview page
In-Reply-To: <g6pma6$p3r$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <488F838D.9000307@stlouis-shopper.com>
	<mailman.387.1217368842.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g6pma6$p3r$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <200807300848.20120.silfreed@silfreed.net>

On Wednesday 30 July 2008 05:20:52 Philip Chee wrote:
> I can't release any files in the flashblock project because when I go to
> the management page, the dropdown shows console2 and xsidebar as the
> only choices. The Flashblock project owner (Ted) emailed you several
> months ago to say that I should have access, but to date I still can't
> do anything about this.

It looks like Ted isn't the current project owner for Flashblock; Theodore 
Drake is.  Unfortunately I can't find an email or bug from either of them 
right now.  If you could have them file a bug from the feedback page [1] we 
can fix that up pretty quickly.

-Doug

-- 
Douglas E. Warner    <silfreed at silfreed.net>    Site Developer
Mozdev.org           http://www.mozdev.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080730/dfd54780/attachment.bin>

From philip.chee at gmail.com  Wed Jul 30 09:20:49 2008
From: philip.chee at gmail.com (Philip Chee)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:20:49 +0800
Subject: [Project_owners] Projects overview page
In-Reply-To: <mailman.391.1217432910.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
References: <488F838D.9000307@stlouis-shopper.com>	<mailman.387.1217368842.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>	<g6pma6$p3r$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<mailman.391.1217432910.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g6q4cc$280k$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:48:19 -0700, Douglas E. Warner wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 July 2008 05:20:52 Philip Chee wrote:

>> I can't release any files in the flashblock project because when I go to
>> the management page, the dropdown shows console2 and xsidebar as the
>> only choices. The Flashblock project owner (Ted) emailed you several
>> months ago to say that I should have access, but to date I still can't
>> do anything about this.
> 
> It looks like Ted isn't the current project owner for Flashblock; Theodore 
> Drake is.  Unfortunately I can't find an email or bug from either of them 

Yes. Ted Drake. They are both Ted as you might have noticed. I would
have thought projectOwner+Ted would be unambiguous.

> right now.  If you could have them file a bug from the feedback page [1] we 
> can fix that up pretty quickly.

I've filed <https://www.mozdev.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=19649> and asked
Ted(D) to add his imprimatur to it.

Phil

-- 
Philip Chee <philip at aleytys.pc.my>, <philip.chee at gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
[ ]Programming - like building a castle with toothpicks
* TagZilla 0.066.6


From silfreed at silfreed.net  Wed Jul 30 09:35:54 2008
From: silfreed at silfreed.net (Douglas E. Warner)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:35:54 -0700
Subject: [Project_owners] Projects overview page
In-Reply-To: <g6q4cc$280k$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <488F838D.9000307@stlouis-shopper.com>
	<mailman.391.1217432910.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
	<g6q4cc$280k$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <200807300935.54846.silfreed@silfreed.net>

On Wednesday 30 July 2008 09:20:49 Philip Chee wrote:
> Yes. Ted Drake. They are both Ted as you might have noticed. I would
> have thought projectOwner+Ted would be unambiguous.
>
> I've filed <https://www.mozdev.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=19649> and asked
> Ted(D) to add his imprimatur to it.

Sorry there was some confusion between the "Teds" involved in your project.  
I've seen the bug and it's been taken care of.  I'm sorry it took so long to 
get this through.

-Doug

-- 
Douglas E. Warner    <silfreed at silfreed.net>    Site Developer
Mozdev.org           http://www.mozdev.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080730/f852926b/attachment.bin>

From silfreed at silfreed.net  Wed Jul 30 10:00:43 2008
From: silfreed at silfreed.net (Douglas E. Warner)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:00:43 -0700
Subject: [Project_owners] Projects overview page
In-Reply-To: <48905D14.7010204@stlouis-shopper.com>
References: <488F838D.9000307@stlouis-shopper.com>
	<200807291500.28722.silfreed@silfreed.net>
	<48905D14.7010204@stlouis-shopper.com>
Message-ID: <200807301000.43973.silfreed@silfreed.net>

On Wednesday 30 July 2008 05:22:44 massey wrote:
> I'm sorry but there seems to be no way to 'release' my browser(
> http://downloads.mozdev.org/kiosk/kiosk-2.0.0.5pre.en-US.linux-i686.tar.gz
> ) via the file management interface so it shows up on the
> https://www.mozdev.org/projects/overview/kiosk/ page. That interface
> seems to only be usefull for addons/extensions(xpi's and zip's). Maybe
> I'm missing something?

I've added (and resolved) bug#19650 [1] to allow releasing .tar.gz and 
.tar.bz2 files under "Other Files".

> Is there a way for me to edit that page(
> https://www.mozdev.org/projects/overview/kiosk/ ) so that users dont
> think there are no items for download for my project?

No; this page is meant to be a controlled page where users can expect the same 
format across all projects rather than a general place for projects to make 
changes.  We're definitely interested in improving it where we can; so if you 
have ideas on how they can be improved feel free to discuss them here or file 
bugs.

> I also notice that this seems to affect many projects that have not yet
> used the file managment interface. Maybe it can be made so that if no
> 'release' has been made then a link on the 'active' or 'inactive' will
> just take the user to the projects home page instead of telling
> (potential) users that nothing has been released for a given project?

The first link on the page is a link to the project home page (the "Home" link 
with the icon).  Perhaps this isn't prominent or clear enough?  I'm not sure 
how it could be improved, feel free to give us your ideas.

-Doug

[1] https://www.mozdev.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=19650
-- 
Douglas E. Warner    <silfreed at silfreed.net>    Site Developer
Mozdev.org           http://www.mozdev.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080730/1b21f83b/attachment.bin>

From philip.chee at gmail.com  Wed Jul 30 10:02:23 2008
From: philip.chee at gmail.com (Philip Chee)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 01:02:23 +0800
Subject: [Project_owners] Projects overview page
In-Reply-To: <mailman.392.1217435766.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
References: <488F838D.9000307@stlouis-shopper.com>	<mailman.391.1217432910.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>	<g6q4cc$280k$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<mailman.392.1217435766.57136.project_owners@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <g6q6q8$2fsh$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:35:54 -0700, Douglas E. Warner wrote:

> Sorry there was some confusion between the "Teds" involved in your project.  
On our internal CC list, I've suggested that one of them change his name
to "Fred".

> I've seen the bug and it's been taken care of.  I'm sorry it took so long to 
> get this through.

Fixed thanks.

Phil

-- 
Philip Chee <philip at aleytys.pc.my>, <philip.chee at gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
[ ]Coming Soon. Mouse Support for Turbo Edlin!
* TagZilla 0.066.6


From massey at stlouis-shopper.com  Wed Jul 30 13:12:00 2008
From: massey at stlouis-shopper.com (massey)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:12:00 -0500
Subject: [Project_owners] Projects overview page
In-Reply-To: <200807301000.43973.silfreed@silfreed.net>
References: <488F838D.9000307@stlouis-shopper.com>	<200807291500.28722.silfreed@silfreed.net>	<48905D14.7010204@stlouis-shopper.com>
	<200807301000.43973.silfreed@silfreed.net>
Message-ID: <4890CB10.1050907@stlouis-shopper.com>


Douglas E. Warner wrote:

> I've added (and resolved) bug#19650 [1] to allow releasing .tar.gz and
>
>.tar.bz2 files under "Other Files".
>
>  
>
Thanks! That goes a long way to making that page less confusing, actualy 
having  something under 'Downloads'

>>Is there a way for me to edit that page(
>>https://www.mozdev.org/projects/overview/kiosk/ ) so that users dont
>>think there are no items for download for my project?
>>    
>>
>
>No; this page is meant to be a controlled page where users can expect the same 
>format across all projects rather than a general place for projects to make 
>changes.  We're definitely interested in improving it where we can; so if you 
>have ideas on how they can be improved feel free to discuss them here or file 
>bugs.
>
>  
>
It sure would be nice if a project owner could decide if the overview 
was used or atleast add some text.

>>I also notice that this seems to affect many projects that have not yet
>>used the file managment interface. Maybe it can be made so that if no
>>'release' has been made then a link on the 'active' or 'inactive' will
>>just take the user to the projects home page instead of telling
>>(potential) users that nothing has been released for a given project?
>>    
>>
>
>The first link on the page is a link to the project home page (the "Home" link 
>with the icon).  Perhaps this isn't prominent or clear enough?  I'm not sure 
>how it could be improved, feel free to give us your ideas.
>
>  
>
I though I did give my idea(s) in the above quote - if nothing has been 
'released' via the file management UI why should that page even be 
shown? Apparently it is confusing to the surfer just looking for 
something. They get to that page and see 'Downloads' and when clicked 
they are told there are none - which may not be true, as is the case for 
a large number of projects that have not used the file management 
interface. Now having been told there are no downloads available why 
would they continue trying other links?

So my suggestions for improvment are:
A) If there are no downloads 'released' then just take people to the 
project home page instead.
B) Allow the project owner to decide whether the 
project/overview/ProjectName page is used for their project. Curently, 
as far as I can tell, you can only get to the overview page from the 
active or inactive projects list. I suppose project owners can add a 
link to this page from their project page(s) if they choose?
C) allow some amout of control of what text is displayed on the overview 
page.
D) Make the Home, source and list links obvious as to what they link to. 
Maybe just a wording change? I guess it would also be good to give an 
indication that overview/projectName is _not_ the projects home, its 
more of a downloads page, right?

Probably just suggestion A) would go a long way to removing the 
confusion created by telling users that there are no downloads available.

Don't get ne wrong I think the idea of the overview(or Secure Downloads) 
page is great and allows people a way to release addons for ff3 without 
the AMO mess.

Thanks

Jim

>-Doug
>
>[1] https://www.mozdev.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=19650
>  
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Project_owners mailing list
>Project_owners at mozdev.org
>https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>  
>

From davidwboswell at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 30 15:55:23 2008
From: davidwboswell at yahoo.com (David Boswell)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Project_owners] Projects overview page
In-Reply-To: <200807301000.43973.silfreed@silfreed.net>
Message-ID: <188631.33012.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

> The first link on the page is a link to the project home
> page (the "Home" link 
> with the icon).  Perhaps this isn't prominent or clear
> enough?  I'm not sure 
> how it could be improved, feel free to give us your ideas.

One idea is that a project without any released files could skip that page and send people to the project home page.  There's not that much for someone to see now on that download page without any releases.  In the future though this page could change to be more of a project dashboard that people would want to see with or without releases.

David

From ocramius at gmail.com  Wed Jul 30 16:02:21 2008
From: ocramius at gmail.com (Marco Pivetta)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 01:02:21 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] Disabling other plugins - Is there any way to do
	that?
Message-ID: <b5a086e0807301602i7716a604rfae417337c6b985@mail.gmail.com>

I lurked around all the MDC today and I did not find any answer.
There are two plugins that are in DIRECT conflict with StOgame
(standardogame), and I receive dozens of bug tickets every day. The default
answer is "Disable XXX and YYY before testing StOgame again".
My idea is to disable my plugin if those are active, or to enable my plugin
and disable those two. Is there any way to do that?
I'm sorry if it seems to be a foolish question, but I really didn't manage
to find anything about it...

-- 
Standard Ogame Project - StOgame
http://www.stogame.net
Making Ogame a better place...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080731/b3fbb41b/attachment.html>

From cfinke at gmail.com  Wed Jul 30 16:49:18 2008
From: cfinke at gmail.com (Christopher Finke)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:49:18 -0500
Subject: [Project_owners] Disabling other plugins - Is there any way to
	do that?
In-Reply-To: <b5a086e0807301602i7716a604rfae417337c6b985@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b5a086e0807301602i7716a604rfae417337c6b985@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d7caf3930807301649q165339ffla07a4f71e734b269@mail.gmail.com>

I believe this:
http://www.xulplanet.com/references/xpcomref/ifaces/nsIExtensionManager.html#method_disableItem
is what you're looking for.

(MDC doesn't have all of the nsIExtensionManager documentation.)

Chris

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Marco Pivetta <ocramius at gmail.com> wrote:
> I lurked around all the MDC today and I did not find any answer.
> There are two plugins that are in DIRECT conflict with StOgame
> (standardogame), and I receive dozens of bug tickets every day. The default
> answer is "Disable XXX and YYY before testing StOgame again".
> My idea is to disable my plugin if those are active, or to enable my plugin
> and disable those two. Is there any way to do that?
> I'm sorry if it seems to be a foolish question, but I really didn't manage
> to find anything about it...
>
> --
> Standard Ogame Project - StOgame
> http://www.stogame.net
> Making Ogame a better place...
>
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
>

From ocramius at gmail.com  Wed Jul 30 18:12:57 2008
From: ocramius at gmail.com (Marco Pivetta)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 03:12:57 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] Disabling other plugins - Is there any way to
	do that?
In-Reply-To: <d7caf3930807301649q165339ffla07a4f71e734b269@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b5a086e0807301602i7716a604rfae417337c6b985@mail.gmail.com>
	<d7caf3930807301649q165339ffla07a4f71e734b269@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b5a086e0807301812r1580dedbs9292cbdab3365837@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you, I'll check it out and let you know...

2008/7/31 Christopher Finke <cfinke at gmail.com>

> I believe this:
>
> http://www.xulplanet.com/references/xpcomref/ifaces/nsIExtensionManager.html#method_disableItem
> is what you're looking for.
>
> (MDC doesn't have all of the nsIExtensionManager documentation.)
>
> Chris
>
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Marco Pivetta <ocramius at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I lurked around all the MDC today and I did not find any answer.
> > There are two plugins that are in DIRECT conflict with StOgame
> > (standardogame), and I receive dozens of bug tickets every day. The
> default
> > answer is "Disable XXX and YYY before testing StOgame again".
> > My idea is to disable my plugin if those are active, or to enable my
> plugin
> > and disable those two. Is there any way to do that?
> > I'm sorry if it seems to be a foolish question, but I really didn't
> manage
> > to find anything about it...
> >
> > --
> > Standard Ogame Project - StOgame
> > http://www.stogame.net
> > Making Ogame a better place...
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Project_owners mailing list
> > Project_owners at mozdev.org
> > https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>



-- 
Standard Ogame Project - StOgame
http://www.stogame.net
Making Ogame a better place...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080731/937f8582/attachment.html>

From paul at roub.net  Thu Jul 31 07:47:25 2008
From: paul at roub.net (Paul Roub)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 09:47:25 -0500
Subject: [Project_owners] log script errors committing to the downloads
	directory
Message-ID: <4891D07D.80207@roub.net>

Wondering if this will hose mirroring, or if these are merely failed 
metadata updates.

Committing (via CVS, haven't switched over to hg yet) to the ieview 
downloads directory, I got this:

Checking in ieview.xpi;
/cvs/ieview/downloads/ieview.xpi,v  <--  ieview.xpi
new revision: 1.40; previous revision: 1.39
done
Processing log script arguments...
Jul 31 07:43:34  [warning] mkdir(): Permission denied 
(/mozdev/sandbox/php/lib/ExtensionUpdateRdf.php at line 54)
====backtrace ====
#0  mkdir() called at 
[/mozdev/sandbox/php/lib/ExtensionUpdateRdf.php:54] 
args{/usr/local/sandbox/site_public_data/www/updates/ieview/{6e84150a-d526-41f1-a480-a67d3fed910d}, 
509, 1}
#1  MD_ExtensionUpdateRdf::generate() called at 
[/mozdev/sandbox/php/lib/Extension.php:196] args{MD_Extension}
#2  MD_Extension->generateUpdateRdf() called at 
[/mozdev/sandbox/php/lib/ProjectDownloadFile.php:883]
#3  MD_ProjectDownloadFile->setPublicReleased() called at 
[/mozdev/sandbox/php/lib/ProjectDownloadFile.php:140] args{}
#4  MD_ProjectDownloadFile::add() called at 
[/mozdev/sandbox/php/include/download_file_info_update.php:80] 
args{ieview, ., ieview.xpi}

Jul 31 07:43:34  [error] Uncaught Exception: Failed to make directory 
(/usr/local/sandbox/site_public_data/www/updates/ieview/{6e84150a-d526-41f1-a480-a67d3fed910d}) 
(/mozdev/sandbox/php/lib/ExtensionUpdateRdf.php at line 56)
====backtrace ====
#0  MD_Extension->generateUpdateRdf() called at 
[/mozdev/sandbox/php/lib/ProjectDownloadFile.php:883]
#1  MD_ProjectDownloadFile->setPublicReleased() called at 
[/mozdev/sandbox/php/lib/ProjectDownloadFile.php:140] args{}
#2  MD_ProjectDownloadFile::add() called at 
[/mozdev/sandbox/php/include/download_file_info_update.php:80] 
args{ieview, ., ieview.xpi}

From ocramius at gmail.com  Thu Jul 31 20:21:40 2008
From: ocramius at gmail.com (Marco Pivetta)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 05:21:40 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] mozIStorageConnection - (NS_ERROR_FAILURE)
	[mozIStorageConnection.beginTransaction]
	[mozIStorageConnection.commitTransaction]
Message-ID: <b5a086e0807312021t2a521a8ay5989c065f9554aa8@mail.gmail.com>

I'm getting NS_ERROR_FAILURE from mozIStorageConnection.beginTransaction and
mozIStorageConnection.commitTransaction.

The code involved in this problem is very very very simple...

*                try
                {
                    AccountDB
                    .beginTransaction();
                }
                catch(e)
                {
                    alert(e)
                }*



*                try
                {
                    AccountDB
                    .commitTransaction();
                }
                catch(e)
                {
                    alert(e)
                }*


and

*AccountDB *

is a working *[xpconnect wrapped mozIStorageConnection]* ...

The first time that *.beginTransaction()* is launched everything works fine,
but when execution reaches* .commitTransaction()* the result is a
NS_ERROR_FAILURE:

[Exception... "Component returned failure code: 0x80004005
(NS_ERROR_FAILURE) [mozIStorageConnection.commitTransaction]"  nsresult:
"0x80004005 (NS_ERROR_FAILURE)"  location: "JS frame ::
chrome://standardogame/content/classes/Ranks.class.js :: anonymous :: line
405"  data: no]

When the code is launched again, ALSO *.beginTransaction() *causes an
NS_ERROR_FAILURE (obviously! Another transaction has been started just
before!)

[Exception... "Component returned failure code: 0x80004005
(NS_ERROR_FAILURE) [mozIStorageConnection.beginTransaction]"  nsresult:
"0x80004005 (NS_ERROR_FAILURE)"  location: "JS frame ::
chrome://standardogame/content/classes/Ranks.class.js :: anonymous :: line
79"  data: no]

Does anybody know if there's a way to discover if a transaction is already
started?
My code is strongly asynchronous because of a lot of XMLHttpRequests. I
checked it out and discovered that an alert() halting the code just before
the *.beginTransaction() *stops the errors from appearing. That means
there's some kind of lock on the database while I'm working on it. How can I
discover if there's a lock? And if there is some file lock, how could i work
with it? I need to use transactions because of 5000+ row inserts (3 minutes
of cpu usage without transactions, 3 seconds WITH transactions). Any idea?

If you need more details I'll also pastebin all the code, but I don't think
it is relevant.

-- 
Standard Ogame Project - StOgame
http://www.stogame.net
Making Ogame a better place...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080801/e41e5348/attachment.html>

From ocramius at gmail.com  Thu Jul 31 20:51:47 2008
From: ocramius at gmail.com (Marco Pivetta)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 05:51:47 +0200
Subject: [Project_owners] mozIStorageConnection - (NS_ERROR_FAILURE)
	[mozIStorageConnection.beginTransaction]
	[mozIStorageConnection.commitTransaction]
In-Reply-To: <b5a086e0807312021t2a521a8ay5989c065f9554aa8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b5a086e0807312021t2a521a8ay5989c065f9554aa8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b5a086e0807312051x687ec9f4s4793b54f260fb6c3@mail.gmail.com>

Almost forgot...
Transaction remains open during all the FireFox session.
That's a big problem because it could cause serious data integrity problems
in case of crashes or similars.
Anyway, as it seems, it is impossible to commit it.

2008/8/1 Marco Pivetta <ocramius at gmail.com>

> I'm getting NS_ERROR_FAILURE from mozIStorageConnection.beginTransaction
> and mozIStorageConnection.commitTransaction.
>
> The code involved in this problem is very very very simple...
>
> *                try
>                 {
>                     AccountDB
>                     .beginTransaction();
>                 }
>                 catch(e)
>                 {
>                     alert(e)
>                 }*
>
>
>
> *                try
>                 {
>                     AccountDB
>                     .commitTransaction();
>                 }
>                 catch(e)
>                 {
>                     alert(e)
>                 }*
>
>
> and
>
> *AccountDB *
>
> is a working *[xpconnect wrapped mozIStorageConnection]* ...
>
> The first time that *.beginTransaction()* is launched everything works
> fine, but when execution reaches* .commitTransaction()* the result is a
> NS_ERROR_FAILURE:
>
> [Exception... "Component returned failure code: 0x80004005
> (NS_ERROR_FAILURE) [mozIStorageConnection.commitTransaction]"  nsresult:
> "0x80004005 (NS_ERROR_FAILURE)"  location: "JS frame ::
> chrome://standardogame/content/classes/Ranks.class.js :: anonymous :: line
> 405"  data: no]
>
> When the code is launched again, ALSO *.beginTransaction() *causes an
> NS_ERROR_FAILURE (obviously! Another transaction has been started just
> before!)
>
> [Exception... "Component returned failure code: 0x80004005
> (NS_ERROR_FAILURE) [mozIStorageConnection.beginTransaction]"  nsresult:
> "0x80004005 (NS_ERROR_FAILURE)"  location: "JS frame ::
> chrome://standardogame/content/classes/Ranks.class.js :: anonymous :: line
> 79"  data: no]
>
> Does anybody know if there's a way to discover if a transaction is already
> started?
> My code is strongly asynchronous because of a lot of XMLHttpRequests. I
> checked it out and discovered that an alert() halting the code just before
> the *.beginTransaction() *stops the errors from appearing. That means
> there's some kind of lock on the database while I'm working on it. How can I
> discover if there's a lock? And if there is some file lock, how could i work
> with it? I need to use transactions because of 5000+ row inserts (3 minutes
> of cpu usage without transactions, 3 seconds WITH transactions). Any idea?
>
> If you need more details I'll also pastebin all the code, but I don't think
> it is relevant.
>
> --
> Standard Ogame Project - StOgame
> http://www.stogame.net
> Making Ogame a better place...
>



-- 
Standard Ogame Project - StOgame
http://www.stogame.net
Making Ogame a better place...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080801/3eda79a0/attachment.html>