Comments on: AMO Deployment bumped to March 22nd http://blog.mozilla.com/webdev/2007/03/15/amo-deployment-bumped-to-march-22nd/ Everybody Likes Ninjas Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:05:57 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: filim http://blog.mozilla.com/webdev/2007/03/15/amo-deployment-bumped-to-march-22nd/comment-page-1/#comment-74241 filim Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:48:22 +0000 http://blog.mozilla.com/webdev/2007/03/15/amo-deployment-bumped-to-march-22nd/#comment-74241 Shut up Creon. Better late than never. Shut up Creon. Better late than never.

]]> By: xeen http://blog.mozilla.com/webdev/2007/03/15/amo-deployment-bumped-to-march-22nd/comment-page-1/#comment-2117 xeen Fri, 23 Mar 2007 21:23:05 +0000 http://blog.mozilla.com/webdev/2007/03/15/amo-deployment-bumped-to-march-22nd/#comment-2117 I'm not sure if all those criticizers here have ever actively developed an extension and published it on AMO. I agree that finding the sandbox is pretty hard, I think registering is enough so that "one time" people like Your Mom (TM) don't find it. * Wrong descriptions (like having 2 lines twice) is NOT a problem of AMOv3 but of the developers that don't update their description. * Your extension can be pushed to the public site even when there aren't any reviews available because they can still get reviewed like they did before. The only action the developer gotta take is clicking a link in the new dev panel. If the developers were "active" they would've updated their descriptions and would've clicked the "nominate" link but they haven't... so they're not really active then... want to blame AMO for that? * Keeping the comments... Zed, are. you. serious!? Most of them are one-liners like "nice extension" or "works great, thanks" "bugs xyz sucks". It's just the rating put into words and doesn't provide real info to a new users. Some add requests for new features or insults because they don't like the extension. Just have a look at "Download Statusbar"'s comments: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/26/comments/ Only really useful comment is by 徐孟瑞, and it doesn't provide information that wasn't already obvious from the description. Ratings aren't lost by the way, so I don't see any disadvantage here. No one really read the comments anyway. How do I know? Because people keep asking for the same issues answered a few comments earlier. So having class instead of mass is a pretty nice idea. * "Work gone". That's plainly wrong. Considering that Your Mom visits the site for the first time, it's a pretty good idea to only offer high quality extensions that are unlikely to break anything. It depends on the devs as well, they need to be honest to themselves and not public buggy extensions. Keeping extensions in the sandbox is a great way to only serve extensions to advanced users. I just don't want one of my extensions to be on the public pages because I can admit to myself that it doesn't meet the required high quality standards even though I put much work into it and I'm not angry about it at all. * "All of them were sure their program will stay there for the eternity" Wrong again. Developers know that they have to obey the maxVersion limit set by AMO. So devs are forced to upload version bumps every new Firefox version as AMO only allows maxVersions for builds that already exist. E.g. entering "5.0" as maxVersion for Firefox is NOT possible. As almost no one knows about nightly tester tools or how to version bump an extension, there's little to no difference if they are on the public site where no one* can install them or if they are in the sandbox where no one* can find them (*: no one excludes advanced users). I think v3's concept is pretty fine, even though the discoverability of the sandbox should be improved (having to activate a checkbox in the settings is pretty hard to find). I don't know where you all draw your information from, but it's a clear improvement, especially for the USERS. If developers don't care for their extensions you really can't blame AMO for it. When browsing the preview I can see many extensions that already updated their descriptions, some even provide translated versions and so on. These are caring developers, not the ones that don't even update their descriptions although it's been long known now that AMOv3 will replace v2 sooner or later. Greetings xeen I’m not sure if all those criticizers here have ever actively developed an extension and published it on AMO. I agree that finding the sandbox is pretty hard, I think registering is enough so that “one time” people like Your Mom (TM) don’t find it.
* Wrong descriptions (like having 2 lines twice) is NOT a problem of AMOv3 but of the developers that don’t update their description.
* Your extension can be pushed to the public site even when there aren’t any reviews available because they can still get reviewed like they did before. The only action the developer gotta take is clicking a link in the new dev panel. If the developers were “active” they would’ve updated their descriptions and would’ve clicked the “nominate” link but they haven’t… so they’re not really active then… want to blame AMO for that?
* Keeping the comments… Zed, are. you. serious!? Most of them are one-liners like “nice extension” or “works great, thanks” “bugs xyz sucks”. It’s just the rating put into words and doesn’t provide real info to a new users. Some add requests for new features or insults because they don’t like the extension. Just have a look at “Download Statusbar”’s comments: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/26/comments/ Only really useful comment is by 徐孟瑞, and it doesn’t provide information that wasn’t already obvious from the description. Ratings aren’t lost by the way, so I don’t see any disadvantage here. No one really read the comments anyway. How do I know? Because people keep asking for the same issues answered a few comments earlier. So having class instead of mass is a pretty nice idea.
* “Work gone”. That’s plainly wrong. Considering that Your Mom visits the site for the first time, it’s a pretty good idea to only offer high quality extensions that are unlikely to break anything. It depends on the devs as well, they need to be honest to themselves and not public buggy extensions. Keeping extensions in the sandbox is a great way to only serve extensions to advanced users. I just don’t want one of my extensions to be on the public pages because I can admit to myself that it doesn’t meet the required high quality standards even though I put much work into it and I’m not angry about it at all.
* “All of them were sure their program will stay there for the eternity” Wrong again. Developers know that they have to obey the maxVersion limit set by AMO. So devs are forced to upload version bumps every new Firefox version as AMO only allows maxVersions for builds that already exist. E.g. entering “5.0″ as maxVersion for Firefox is NOT possible. As almost no one knows about nightly tester tools or how to version bump an extension, there’s little to no difference if they are on the public site where no one* can install them or if they are in the sandbox where no one* can find them (*: no one excludes advanced users).

I think v3’s concept is pretty fine, even though the discoverability of the sandbox should be improved (having to activate a checkbox in the settings is pretty hard to find).

I don’t know where you all draw your information from, but it’s a clear improvement, especially for the USERS. If developers don’t care for their extensions you really can’t blame AMO for it. When browsing the preview I can see many extensions that already updated their descriptions, some even provide translated versions and so on. These are caring developers, not the ones that don’t even update their descriptions although it’s been long known now that AMOv3 will replace v2 sooner or later.
Greetings
xeen

]]> By: slyfox http://blog.mozilla.com/webdev/2007/03/15/amo-deployment-bumped-to-march-22nd/comment-page-1/#comment-2113 slyfox Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:38:44 +0000 http://blog.mozilla.com/webdev/2007/03/15/amo-deployment-bumped-to-march-22nd/#comment-2113 Welcome to March 23rd...Good Effort Guys.....*Shakes Head* Welcome to March 23rd…Good Effort Guys…..*Shakes Head*

]]> By: James http://blog.mozilla.com/webdev/2007/03/15/amo-deployment-bumped-to-march-22nd/comment-page-1/#comment-2112 James Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:41:27 +0000 http://blog.mozilla.com/webdev/2007/03/15/amo-deployment-bumped-to-march-22nd/#comment-2112 Is there anyway users can vote for inclusion in the new AMO site? I noticed that the theme I use, flawless execution, 4.65 rating, was not included. I would never have found it through the new site. Why is less more - isn't user choice an essence of the internet? Is there anyway users can vote for inclusion in the new AMO site? I noticed that the theme I use, flawless execution, 4.65 rating, was not included. I would never have found it through the new site. Why is less more – isn’t user choice an essence of the internet?

]]> By: Zed http://blog.mozilla.com/webdev/2007/03/15/amo-deployment-bumped-to-march-22nd/comment-page-1/#comment-2111 Zed Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:40:10 +0000 http://blog.mozilla.com/webdev/2007/03/15/amo-deployment-bumped-to-march-22nd/#comment-2111 All right, the 'lower than' sign ends the message :) Now the point of view of the extension developer: most of their extensions have been removed from amo. I say 'remove' because no-one ( LOWER THAN 1%) will ever configure his/her amo account to be able to view sandboxed extensions. Developers have spent many nights and week-ends trying to produce their best code and make a popular extension. All of them were sure their program will stay there for the eternity. Many linked their amo page from their site as they were told "Submit you're extension to this site ensure to be always downloadable and automatically updated". Now, their work has gone ! Please do not underestimate the frustration it will cause. How long will it take before many of them will pass directly their angry users requests to amo-editors@mozilla.org ? Or worse, decide to stop developing on mozilla because the whole distribution system cannot be trusted ? I agree, there are many improvements that can be done to the existing (2.0) system, like allowing comparisons between equivalent extensions, amo reviewers giving a quality label, wider than the recommended addons. If you want to cleanup unsupported and obsolete extensions, ping by mail the developers to do an action to avoid the removal of their add-ons, but please, please do not 'remove' the work from so many active developers. You just rolled back from amo 3.0. Please, do not put it back. Errare humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum. All right, the ‘lower than’ sign ends the message :)

Now the point of view of the extension developer: most of their extensions have been removed from amo. I say ‘remove’ because no-one ( LOWER THAN 1%) will ever configure his/her amo account to be able to view sandboxed extensions. Developers have spent many nights and week-ends trying to produce their best code and make a popular extension. All of them were sure their program will stay there for the eternity. Many linked their amo page from their site as they were told “Submit you’re extension to this site ensure to be always downloadable and automatically updated”. Now, their work has gone ! Please do not underestimate the frustration it will cause. How long will it take before many of them will pass directly their angry users requests to amo-editors@mozilla.org ? Or worse, decide to stop developing on mozilla because the whole distribution system cannot be trusted ?

I agree, there are many improvements that can be done to the existing (2.0) system, like allowing comparisons between equivalent extensions, amo reviewers giving a quality label, wider than the recommended addons. If you want to cleanup unsupported and obsolete extensions, ping by mail the developers to do an action to avoid the removal of their add-ons, but please, please do not ‘remove’ the work from so many active developers.

You just rolled back from amo 3.0. Please, do not put it back. Errare humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum.

]]> By: Zed http://blog.mozilla.com/webdev/2007/03/15/amo-deployment-bumped-to-march-22nd/comment-page-1/#comment-2110 Zed Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:38:37 +0000 http://blog.mozilla.com/webdev/2007/03/15/amo-deployment-bumped-to-march-22nd/#comment-2110 follow-up cut down message: Now the point of view of the extension developer: most of their extensions have been removed from amo. I say 'remove' because no-one ( follow-up cut down message:

Now the point of view of the extension developer: most of their extensions have been removed from amo. I say ‘remove’ because no-one (

]]> By: Zed http://blog.mozilla.com/webdev/2007/03/15/amo-deployment-bumped-to-march-22nd/comment-page-1/#comment-2109 Zed Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:36:55 +0000 http://blog.mozilla.com/webdev/2007/03/15/amo-deployment-bumped-to-march-22nd/#comment-2109 ... my previous message was cut down ... Now the point of view of the extension developer: most of their extensions have been removed from amo. I say 'remove' because no-one ( … my previous message was cut down …

Now the point of view of the extension developer: most of their extensions have been removed from amo. I say ‘remove’ because no-one (

]]> By: clyde http://blog.mozilla.com/webdev/2007/03/15/amo-deployment-bumped-to-march-22nd/comment-page-1/#comment-2108 clyde Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:54:25 +0000 http://blog.mozilla.com/webdev/2007/03/15/amo-deployment-bumped-to-march-22nd/#comment-2108 why did they need a new page anyway? someone explain please? why did they need a new page anyway?
someone explain please?

]]> By: Zed http://blog.mozilla.com/webdev/2007/03/15/amo-deployment-bumped-to-march-22nd/comment-page-1/#comment-2107 Zed Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:31:23 +0000 http://blog.mozilla.com/webdev/2007/03/15/amo-deployment-bumped-to-march-22nd/#comment-2107 I agree with Chuck Baker, you cannot simply throw away past comments and ratings. Overall, it must represent thousands of hours of review and writing. Even if many ones are not pertinent, most have been written by honest people who just wanted to share their opinion without date limit. Now the point of view of the extension developer: most of their extensions have been removed from amo. I say 'remove' because no-one ( I agree with Chuck Baker, you cannot simply throw away past comments and ratings. Overall, it must represent thousands of hours of review and writing. Even if many ones are not pertinent, most have been written by honest people who just wanted to share their opinion without date limit.

Now the point of view of the extension developer: most of their extensions have been removed from amo. I say ‘remove’ because no-one (

]]> By: Fred http://blog.mozilla.com/webdev/2007/03/15/amo-deployment-bumped-to-march-22nd/comment-page-1/#comment-2106 Fred Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:14:50 +0000 http://blog.mozilla.com/webdev/2007/03/15/amo-deployment-bumped-to-march-22nd/#comment-2106 Awww damn! The little boys building their tree house strike (out) again :( It's a good thing that none of you work for large corporates that require working (As in relatively bug free) systems to be delivered on time. Awww damn! The little boys building their tree house strike (out) again :(

It’s a good thing that none of you work for large corporates that require working (As in relatively bug free) systems to be delivered on time.

]]>