Asa Dotzler: Firefox and more

I disagree. As long as you know what you're getting into, then there isn't a problem. I've used the Nightly Test Tools for a long time now with no problems whatsoever. I use it in the sense that of the few extensions I use regularly, they may not have a version ready yet for the latest build of Firefox. Also, there is one extension that I've used for what seems like forever, but there hasn't been an update for it since the first version and there are no other extensions out there that do what this one does. It works just fine when I use the Nightly Test Tools, so why not use it? I could see if you were installing untrusted extensions, but for me, I trust the extensions that I've used for years. So, if you're an average user, someone who regularly files bugs for betas, or if you use untrusted extensions, then don't do it. If you trust the extension, you know an updated version of that extension is coming soon but isn't quite here yet, or your extension hasn't been updated and there are no other extensions out there and you know the extension has worked in Firefox versions well past it's stated limit, then go ahead. Like I said before, though, just know that stuff can go badly. If you're ok with that, well then.

Disabling compatibility checking doesn't make an extension compatible, but it may make it work just fine.

James,

An average user does not use Nightly Test Tools.

It is ok for people who use nightlies, but disabling add-on compatibility checking isnt something that should be promoted outside of that group.

Hey Asa, if you want us to quit messing with version checking, why doesn't Mozilla use your cozy relationship w/ Google to get them to UPGRADE GOOGLE TOOLBAR ALREADY to support FF3!!

Is Mozilla going to have an incentive for extension developers to upgrade their extensions like they did when 2.0 came out?

Hi

Just a though on the Add-Ons page: Wouldn't it be nice to have a check box "Show only Add-Ons compatible with my Version" (perhaps checked by default)? So it would only show add-ons you actually can install. This is just my 2c...

Thanks for this really cool FireFox!
MaX (FF3-b5)

I agree with normal users. Now let's consider developers.

Use case : *I* want to update my extension Glazoom for FF3.0b4 because *I* received a kind email from *Mozilla* asking me to update my extensions available on AMO.
So I upgrade FF to official 3.0b4, upgrade my extension's maxVersion, want to check using venkman that everything is fine after my init() call but hey venkman is itself disabled because there's no update yet for 3.0b4 on AMO.

Version 1 : since a new version of venkman is not available ANYWAY, I unzip current venkman's XPI, update the maxVersion, re-zip it, install it hoping venkman will still help a bit.

Version 2 : I disable add-ons compatibility checks through about:config, hoping venkman will still help a bit.

Intermediate conclusion : same result, one painful path, one trivial one.

Conclusion : developers tools like venkman are mandatory for extension developers. Sending the email mentioned above BEFORE these tools are available for the new beta of FF does not make sense.

These developer tools should be released on AMO exactly at the time FF is updated
OR the mechanism I outlined on my blog should be implemented
OR disabling add-ons compatibility checks is our friend...

Version numbers like b5pre are fairly useless because all it really means is that you're using a nightly before b5, but after b4. Well, great... but you could figure that out by build date if you needed to.

You can make the argument that version numbers like "b5pre" are beneficial for nightly testers, because it allows developers to assert compatibility to a fairly small set of builds ("between b4 and b5", as opposed to "all nightlies between 2.0 and 3.0"), but nightly testers don't really need that information, because for the most part they'll be using whatever the latest build is anyway.

As-is, using such a version number would expose people to problems with betas (3.0pre as a maxVersion would probably install on b3, b4, b5, etc, builds that far more people would use, where extension compatibility checking is probably more useful). The system would need to be modified such that "3.0pre"/"2.0+" is not compatible with release builds. This would also probably mean that only development tool authors would use those version labels, as authors aiming for beta compatibility can't simply slap a catch-all maxVersion on and hope for the best.

Well, I was incredibly unclear with that comment. What I was trying to say is that development-oriented extensions and nightlies should use a generic version number, like "2.0+" or "3.0pre".

I strongly disagree with this.
If a user knows how to modify the compatibility check, than it is fair to assume that that user is not an "average" one, and when we take into concern that the same user is using beta software...
I would rather assume that the user changing compatibility check knows what he is doing and what impact it may have.

About the Google toolbar, in the past (I remember specifically around the 2.0 release), Google hasn't updated it for the betas/RCs but will update it almost immediately when the final release is announced.

As a developer who uses AMO, I understand the issues mentioned around versioning and agree that it's a pain and we should be doing a better job.

However, I do not agree with web posts that tell average users to go download NTT and disable extension checking. We have around 1 million people using Firefox 3 beta 5. Telling those people to disable compatibility checking to get some add-ons to appear is a bad idea and will only cause problems in the long term.

Disabling add-on compatibility checks may be an add-on developer's friend, but not for typical browsing. In fact, even add-on developers should be using a separate profile for development work and should be using a safe profile normal browsing.

Mark, actually, it's about 3 million beta users. Everything else, spot on.

- A

In reply to Max, mozilla.addons.org had an advanced search that among other useful features allowed you to search based on Firefox version number, but it was removed in March 2007. The mozilla.org sites are getting more and more eye candy and becoming less and less helpful.