<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 29/04/2016 5:22 AM, R Kent James
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class=" cite"
id="mid_68108a89_6bf1_f1a7_3e94_e5a41939d308_caspia_com"
cite="mid:68108a89-6bf1-f1a7-3e94-e5a41939d308@caspia.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Our managing of addon updates is fairly problematic now in Thunderbird,
as we rely on authors to test and update addons, but assume that addons
are compatible by default. This results in a number of addons that break
TB when installed on update.
Rather than just mark these as "not our problem" I suggest instead that
we collect names and versions of addons that are known to break core
Thunderbird functionality, and use a blocklist update to block these. I
would not do that for addons whose functionality breaks, only when the
addon breaks seemingly unrelated core functionality.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<i>All good Kent, but who is the arbiter. I am regularly advised
by users that following a safe mode start they have narrowed it
down to say lightning. Do we take their word for it. A read of
the reviews on AMO makes it obvious we can not rely on users to be
able to identify anything. So do we set up a testing process?
File a Bug? and wait for someone to verify it? In a week or two
most issues disappear as the add-on author gets their new version
through AMO review and the auto update takes over.<br>
<br>
It is not pretty and it does not account for the abandonware that
litters AMO. It is not all that long ago that I saw folks
explaining in Support how to install MailTweak and counseling that
some features did not work, but remove local folders did still
function. That has not been updated since Version 3 and is a
disaster in the making. <br>
<br>
I am all for the idea, but I don't know how to make it work<br>
<br>
Matt<br>
</i>
</body>
</html>