[Project_owners] Awaiting extension upgrade approval

Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com
Tue Jul 8 07:30:42 PDT 2008


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.


More information about the Project_owners mailing list