<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/14/2020 3:09 PM, Eyal Rozenberg
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:bdc4b803-cbd4-211e-df7c-1d5dece6a478@technion.ac.il">Andrei,
you haven't really answered my question. Is it:
<br>
<br>
1. The AMO codebase proper (olympia),
<br>
2. a fork,
<br>
3. or an independent codebase?
<br>
<br>
In case (1.), we should just pressure the "Olympia" developers to
(re)-introduce the feature, because we need it.
<br>
<br>
In cases (2.), (3.) - where is the issue tracker for the ATN
source? We need to move from having "no plans" for this feature to
planning its reintroduction. It's important... and it will be
important for the next release(s) as well. Even the most
rudimentary support for this - i.e. a well-placed box with a link
to where betas are available off-site - would already improve
things. So it's not a dichotomy between "a huge project" and
"doing nothing".
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I did answer your question, it's not happening, and I gave you an
alternative. That's the last word I'll be saying on the matter.<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://github.com/thundernest/addons-server/issues">ATN is
a fork of addons-server on a fairly old revision</a>. We do make
some effort to be able to take updates from upstream, but it is
difficult because we maintain support for legacy add-ons which are
long dead to Firefox. Things will hopefully improve once we can move
past that, but front-end work is needed as well. I doubt the AMO
team cares to introduce any sort of beta function as there's no real
point to it with the state of Web Extensions on Firefox. Even if
they did, it would be a long time before we'd be able to take any of
those patches.<br>
</body>
</html>