Comments on: The How’s & Why’s of the AMO Recommended Rotation http://blog.mozilla.com/addons/2009/03/10/the-hows-whys-of-the-amo-recommended-rotation/ Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:23:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Seth Wagoner http://blog.mozilla.com/addons/2009/03/10/the-hows-whys-of-the-amo-recommended-rotation/comment-page-1/#comment-2914 Seth Wagoner Sun, 29 Mar 2009 05:47:01 +0000 http://blog.mozilla.com/addons/?p=354#comment-2914 Yes, the most important thing about staying up to date with the latest Beta version is that it means users will not be reluctant to switch to a new Firefox beta because their favorite add-on is not yet compatible with it. It's more than fair for Mozilla to require this extra effort from the add-on authors who are benefiting from the exposure of the Recommended List. It also means that we will be likely to catch any compatibility issues well before the new FF version goes final, which can only be a good thing. Yes, the most important thing about staying up to date with the latest Beta version is that it means users will not be reluctant to switch to a new Firefox beta because their favorite add-on is not yet compatible with it. It’s more than fair for Mozilla to require this extra effort from the add-on authors who are benefiting from the exposure of the Recommended List.

It also means that we will be likely to catch any compatibility issues well before the new FF version goes final, which can only be a good thing.

]]> By: Sébastien Forestier http://blog.mozilla.com/addons/2009/03/10/the-hows-whys-of-the-amo-recommended-rotation/comment-page-1/#comment-2722 Sébastien Forestier Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:12:20 +0000 http://blog.mozilla.com/addons/?p=354#comment-2722 In relation to Archeopteryx and Michael Lefevre posts, I personnally agree that you require add-ons to be compatible with the latest FF versions, even betas. This has 2 advantages: -encouraging add-on developers to port to the next beta. -encourage users to test the beta (having a beta available, but missing the favourite add-on on it, deters many users that would otherwise try the beta and report bugs). I view the 'Recommended Add-ons' list as a meritocracy, a podium of 'the best among the best', therefore the ones who have done the extra effort to port to the latest beta deserve additional merit IMHO. And those who don't want, or can't, I suppose they are automatically candidates for returning on the 'Recommended' list when the beta/RC cycle is finished (until the next one of course). In relation to Archeopteryx and Michael Lefevre posts, I personnally agree that you require add-ons to be compatible with the latest FF versions, even betas.

This has 2 advantages:
-encouraging add-on developers to port to the next beta.
-encourage users to test the beta (having a beta available, but missing the favourite add-on on it, deters many users that would otherwise try the beta and report bugs).

I view the ‘Recommended Add-ons’ list as a meritocracy, a podium of ‘the best among the best’, therefore the ones who have done the extra effort to port to the latest beta deserve additional merit IMHO.

And those who don’t want, or can’t, I suppose they are automatically candidates for returning on the ‘Recommended’ list when the beta/RC cycle is finished (until the next one of course).

]]> By: Andrew Eichenbaum http://blog.mozilla.com/addons/2009/03/10/the-hows-whys-of-the-amo-recommended-rotation/comment-page-1/#comment-2575 Andrew Eichenbaum Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:36:20 +0000 http://blog.mozilla.com/addons/?p=354#comment-2575 We do a weekly check against trunk (3.2.1preAlpha) and have computability with that, so can we always be on the recommended list. :D We do a weekly check against trunk (3.2.1preAlpha) and have computability with that, so can we always be on the recommended list. :D

]]> By: Michael Lefevre http://blog.mozilla.com/addons/2009/03/10/the-hows-whys-of-the-amo-recommended-rotation/comment-page-1/#comment-2561 Michael Lefevre Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:45:27 +0000 http://blog.mozilla.com/addons/?p=354#comment-2561 Er... so of course I meant 3.5, not 3.1 :) Er… so of course I meant 3.5, not 3.1 :)

]]> By: Michael Lefevre http://blog.mozilla.com/addons/2009/03/10/the-hows-whys-of-the-amo-recommended-rotation/comment-page-1/#comment-2560 Michael Lefevre Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:44:36 +0000 http://blog.mozilla.com/addons/?p=354#comment-2560 "Lastly, an EXTREMELY important requirement for being recommended is to be up-to-date with the most current beta version of Firefox. The number of add-ons that have been passed by due to not supporting the latest Firefox beta build (currently 3.1b2) is staggering" As previous commenter says, there are 380,000 people using the beta, compared to tens of millions of people using the stable releases, so it seems odd that support of beta releases is so important. You didn't give the reasoning behind this, but I guess that what is actually important is that a recommended add-on ends up being supported when the next final release is out, so people don't install a recommended add-on on their 3.0 now only to find that it doesn't get supported in 3.1. Is the fact that the developer is sitting there waiting to poke the version tags on AMO as and when they are made available actually the best indicator of this? “Lastly, an EXTREMELY important requirement for being recommended is to be up-to-date with the most current beta version of Firefox. The number of add-ons that have been passed by due to not supporting the latest Firefox beta build (currently 3.1b2) is staggering”

As previous commenter says, there are 380,000 people using the beta, compared to tens of millions of people using the stable releases, so it seems odd that support of beta releases is so important.

You didn’t give the reasoning behind this, but I guess that what is actually important is that a recommended add-on ends up being supported when the next final release is out, so people don’t install a recommended add-on on their 3.0 now only to find that it doesn’t get supported in 3.1.

Is the fact that the developer is sitting there waiting to poke the version tags on AMO as and when they are made available actually the best indicator of this?

]]> By: Archaeopteryx http://blog.mozilla.com/addons/2009/03/10/the-hows-whys-of-the-amo-recommended-rotation/comment-page-1/#comment-2557 Archaeopteryx Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:55:58 +0000 http://blog.mozilla.com/addons/?p=354#comment-2557 Requesting compatibility with non-release builds like 3.1b2, 3.1b3pre etc. seems harsh because less than 1 per cent of the users use the builds, some developers only want to care about release builds. Requesting compatibility with non-release builds like 3.1b2, 3.1b3pre etc. seems harsh because less than 1 per cent of the users use the builds, some developers only want to care about release builds.

]]>