<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>If and when Manifest v3 is adapted by Mozilla, Thunderbird would
also adapt. But this is hardly about redeveloping everything once
again. It's a non backwards-compatible change, but AIUI, changes
would generally not be significant (YMMV).<br>
</p>
<p> -Magnus<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 03-10-2019 11:17, Emmanuel Sellier
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAAfhjWyi40HQ6BWaw8VBCR-dXFXWWbPwAghH9GTBSPbKsjTovQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">I fully understand, and agree, that it is
necessary for TB to continue to evolve as closely as possible
to Firefox's evolutions (for security reasons, in particular).<br>
However, I am somewhat concerned about the sequence of these
developments. What will happen if Mozilla decides to fully
adopt Google's Manifest V3 for Firefox extensions? Will it
then be necessary to redevelop everything again?<br>
<a
href="https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2019/09/03/mozillas-manifest-v3-faq/"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2019/09/03/mozillas-manifest-v3-faq/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
Translated with <a href="http://www.DeepL.com/Translator"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.DeepL.com/Translator</a><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 10:05
AM Magnus Melin <<a
href="mailto:mkmelin%2Bmozilla@iki.fi"
moz-do-not-send="true">mkmelin+mozilla@iki.fi</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On 03-10-2019 02:06, Eric
Moore wrote:<br>
> I understand the motivation for wanting to drop all
support for legacy <br>
> add-ons in future releases but<br>
><br>
> (1) I don't understand why its so terrible to continue
to store (and <br>
> distribute) legacy add-ons on Thunderbird.net for one
more year while <br>
> waiting for a fleshed out/more usable MailExtensions
API to be <br>
> available, and more legacy add-ons to be rewritten as
MailExtensions. <br>
> Please elaborate on the reasoning why dropping legacy
add-ons support <br>
> in future versions and whats available in <a
href="http://thunderbird.net" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">thunderbird.net</a>
need to be <br>
> so tightly coupled.<br>
<br>
Anyone is of course (like now) free to host an add-ons
collection on <br>
their site.<br>
<br>
For Thunderbird's side officially, it makes no sense for us
to host <br>
add-ons that the application would not support. Maybe to
clarify, <br>
<a href="http://addons.thunderbird.net" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">addons.thunderbird.net</a>
will still host the traditional add-ons until <br>
Thunderbird 68 is EOL, so until sometime late 2020.<br>
<br>
><br>
> (2) Why can't the legacy add-ons on Thunderbird.net be
made available <br>
> somewhere else? Perhaps add a "legacy add-ons" entry to
the add-ons <br>
> list box at Thunderbird.net that displays a single web
page with <br>
> download links for all of the legacy extensions and
complete themes <br>
> that support at least version 52. Users wouldn't be
able to fetch them <br>
> from within Thunderbird, its not as convenient as if
each had their <br>
> own add-on page, and some useful information is lost
but at least all <br>
> of the legacy add-ons wouldn't just disappear.<br>
<br>
Well they can, it's just not Thunderbird's job to cater for
that.<br>
<br>
Other than that, we don't want to encourage anyone to stay
on an old <br>
version. You do realize there are *many* security fixes
going into <br>
releases every few weeks? Just look at <br>
<a href="https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/advisories/"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/advisories/</a><br>
<br>
><br>
> (3) What is the target date for when the MailExtensions
API (not the <br>
> Experiments API) is expected to have the API most
legacy add-ons <br>
> authors need, if things go well?<br>
<br>
I don't think that can be answered. Developers always "need"
more than <br>
they have. Expect additions to what we currently have, but
full parity <br>
is not achievable through APIs. Old style add-ons could
virtually do <br>
almost anything, and you can't provide an API to do
anything.<br>
<br>
-Magnus<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
tb-planning mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:tb-planning@mozilla.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">tb-planning@mozilla.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
tb-planning mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:tb-planning@mozilla.org">tb-planning@mozilla.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning">https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>