<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/24/20 11:13 AM, Ben Bucksch wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e011f695-a9aa-b729-b29f-0d0a27318a4f@beonex.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Let me just state that I do <b>not</b>
share Eyal's position on this matter.<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">I agree with sancus for example
that removing support for legacy XUL extensions in ATN was a
fair choice. The alternative would have been to fork AMO/ATN,
and it's a huge and complicated codebase, and that would not
have been reasonable. The decision made was sound.<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">But I would like TB to find ways to
make life less painful for extension developers. There are many
low hanging fruits for immediate relief that are not difficult
to implement. There are also many different ways to help.<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">My approach is to look at the
cumulative work: If 300 extensions need to do 1h of work each
(300h total), or alternatively TB project needs to do 10h of
work, I think we should let TB help out. It would be a net
positive.<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">I also think that TB project should
be more active in finding new volunteer owners for abandonned
addons that are in active use. In the interest of our end users
to have a smooth upgrade.<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Little decisions like that make a
huge difference in the result.<br>
</div>
<p>Ben</p>
</blockquote>
<p>AMEN! On every single point.</p>
<p>It's not very public but (for a year now?) we have been doing
"finding new volunteer owners for abandonned addons that are in
active use". Christopher kicked it off. And John has gotten it in
higher gear in just the last couple months. Absolutely more needs
to be done.<br>
</p>
<p>But it's a struggle when (as we have from the beginning fo time
IMO) we're not starting with a cohesive (and happy and active)
add-on developer base, insufficiently documented or not yet
discovered solutions, and (from my perspective) a general
reluctance of many add-on developers to dig in and contribute to
creating solutions - like Christopher and John are doing. They
have put in massive time. Hats off to them and <b><u>everyone
else</u></b> who is participating in that,.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>