<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
At the current time, the allowed versions in AMO for Thunderbird are
(including only recent versions):<br>
<br>
<code>9.0a1, 9.0a2, 9.0, 9.*, 10.0a1, 10.0a2, 10.0, 10.*, 11.0a1,
11.0a2, 11.*, 12.0a1<br>
<br>
</code>Missing from that list is 11.0 (but previously 9.0 and 10.0
existed), which unfortunately is the revision that the script for my
binary addon New Account Types uses in generating its install.rdf
for the revision that supports 9, 10, and 11.<br>
<br>
Now I have no problem changing the script so that n.* in the future
is the allowed version. In fact that has advantages, as it extends
the life of the addon beyond the beta phase into the release phase
(which lately has routinely needed a n.0.1 version).<br>
<br>
But it would be very helpful if I knew the standard plan for allowed
revisions. In the future, will the n.* or the n.0 be a more reliable
early allowed version?<br>
<br>
This is very important for binary addons, as with the new rapid
release cycle and disciplines in maintaining stable interfaces
beginning with aurora, a diligent addon author can submit a new
binary addon revision to AMO about now, and get it reviewed and
available to be usable with beta users. Without similar discipline
from the core Thunderbird, this is not possible.<br>
<br>
rkent<br>
</body>
</html>