<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
an example</a> of one that's compatible with 65+ (although not
with 67+ because that's awaiting review).</p>
<p>AIUI the most-recently uploaded version is the one that's shown.
That's frustrating because in this case it's not what most people
would want, assuming they used their browser to find it, which is
a fairly good assumption. But it is clearly marked with
compatibility information and links to other versions so not quite
<p>I have talked about having a setting in ATN for "the most recent
TB release version" and by default displaying the add-on version
compatible with it, but that hasn't happened yet. I'll look into
it some more because it isn't as easy as it sounds.</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/04/19 20:37, Jörg Knobloch wrote:<br>
Apr 2019 09:31, Geoff Lankow wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">Third, to Jörg, if there are updated
add-ons that haven't been uploaded yet, why? Is something
discouraging authors updating, that we can fix?
Well, in my case, ignorance, and yes, that can be fixed. Formerly,
uploading a new version obscured the old version compatible with
TB 60, and authors didn't want that. I understand that you have
fixed that, but I'm still unclear about the mechanics. What do ATN
visitors see? What do they download manually? Is it hard to get to
the TB-60-compatible version?
Maybe we can explore this if you point us to an example.
Also, if and add-on was made compatible with - say - TB 66, there
is no guarantee that it's still compatible with TB 68, so authors
might just wait until TB 68 beta ships in May.
tb-planning mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:email@example.com">firstname.lastname@example.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning">https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning</a>