<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: why update add-ons now?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://shaver.off.net/diary/2008/01/24/why-update-add-ons-now/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://shaver.off.net/diary/2008/01/24/why-update-add-ons-now/</link>
	<description>noise from signal</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2011 07:05:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben Basson</title>
		<link>http://shaver.off.net/diary/2008/01/24/why-update-add-ons-now/comment-page-1/#comment-126918</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben Basson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:43:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shaver.off.net/diary/2008/01/24/why-update-add-ons-now/#comment-126918</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Re: Waiting until the RC, that&#039;s fine, I doubt I&#039;d seriously look at doing anything before then anyway.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Re: Compatibility info on AMO, sure, I do use that feature, but it doesn&#039;t work 100% reliably. I get fairly regular emails (minimum of a couple per week) asking me to update an extension for a point releases of Firefox 2, despite the compatibility being set at 2.0.0.* in AMO. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;My working theory is that Firefox is failing to get the compatibility info for some reason and is falling back to install.rdf, which would indicate incompatibility. The only fix I know of is to resubmit a new XPI to AMO (which I choose not to do) or redirect people to install from my homepage (which has identical XPIs with the exception of install.rdf).&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;If we could update the XPI on AMO for the same version (which is currently prevented), or if AMO rebuilt the installer with compatibility info, this would probably go away. As it stands, I&#039;ve decided to just wait until the &quot;3.0.*&quot; flag is available and then update everything with a new version.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: Waiting until the RC, that&#8217;s fine, I doubt I&#8217;d seriously look at doing anything before then anyway.</p>

<p>Re: Compatibility info on AMO, sure, I do use that feature, but it doesn&#8217;t work 100% reliably. I get fairly regular emails (minimum of a couple per week) asking me to update an extension for a point releases of Firefox 2, despite the compatibility being set at 2.0.0.* in AMO. </p>

<p>My working theory is that Firefox is failing to get the compatibility info for some reason and is falling back to install.rdf, which would indicate incompatibility. The only fix I know of is to resubmit a new XPI to AMO (which I choose not to do) or redirect people to install from my homepage (which has identical XPIs with the exception of install.rdf).</p>

<p>If we could update the XPI on AMO for the same version (which is currently prevented), or if AMO rebuilt the installer with compatibility info, this would probably go away. As it stands, I&#8217;ve decided to just wait until the &#8220;3.0.*&#8221; flag is available and then update everything with a new version.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: shaver</title>
		<link>http://shaver.off.net/diary/2008/01/24/why-update-add-ons-now/comment-page-1/#comment-126876</link>
		<dc:creator>shaver</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:19:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shaver.off.net/diary/2008/01/24/why-update-add-ons-now/#comment-126876</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Ben: you won&#039;t be able to set 3.0.* as the maxVersion until the RC is released, because until then we just can&#039;t be sure we&#039;re not going to make changes that might require an extension to make a change.  But you don&#039;t have to re-upload just to update compatibility information: you can do that from the developer control panel on AMO, as Justin outlines in &lt;a href=&quot;https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/blog/4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;his blog post on AMO&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ben: you won&#8217;t be able to set 3.0.* as the maxVersion until the RC is released, because until then we just can&#8217;t be sure we&#8217;re not going to make changes that might require an extension to make a change.  But you don&#8217;t have to re-upload just to update compatibility information: you can do that from the developer control panel on AMO, as Justin outlines in <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/blog/4" rel="nofollow">his blog post on AMO</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben Basson</title>
		<link>http://shaver.off.net/diary/2008/01/24/why-update-add-ons-now/comment-page-1/#comment-126849</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben Basson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:44:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shaver.off.net/diary/2008/01/24/why-update-add-ons-now/#comment-126849</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I&#039;m pesonally waiting until we can actually set &quot;3.0.*&quot; as the maxVersion on AMO before I submit anything. I don&#039;t want to have to submit multiple versions.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m pesonally waiting until we can actually set &#8220;3.0.*&#8221; as the maxVersion on AMO before I submit anything. I don&#8217;t want to have to submit multiple versions.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aaron</title>
		<link>http://shaver.off.net/diary/2008/01/24/why-update-add-ons-now/comment-page-1/#comment-123827</link>
		<dc:creator>Aaron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:18:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shaver.off.net/diary/2008/01/24/why-update-add-ons-now/#comment-123827</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;There needs to be another Firefox extension contest -- winners would be those new/updated extensions that best show off the new features of Firefox 3.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There needs to be another Firefox extension contest &#8212; winners would be those new/updated extensions that best show off the new features of Firefox 3.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Omega X</title>
		<link>http://shaver.off.net/diary/2008/01/24/why-update-add-ons-now/comment-page-1/#comment-123808</link>
		<dc:creator>Omega X</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:45:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shaver.off.net/diary/2008/01/24/why-update-add-ons-now/#comment-123808</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Last time I checked, they were looking for more volunteer Reviewers at AMO. That could be the reason for the delay.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Last time I checked, they were looking for more volunteer Reviewers at AMO. That could be the reason for the delay.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matthew Wilson</title>
		<link>http://shaver.off.net/diary/2008/01/24/why-update-add-ons-now/comment-page-1/#comment-123774</link>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Wilson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:23:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shaver.off.net/diary/2008/01/24/why-update-add-ons-now/#comment-123774</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;What is the current status with amo reviewers? I submitted a FF3 version a few weeks ago and haven&#039;t heard anything.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What is the current status with amo reviewers? I submitted a FF3 version a few weeks ago and haven&#8217;t heard anything.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

