91–100 of 442 posts
Why does this extension even exist on AMO? The article says it's the "Lite/Manifest v3 version" - why would you ever install the inferior edition meant for legacy browsers, instead of the one that blocks ads properly that's meant for Firefox?
Because it's lighter on power usage, and that matters for firefox on android.
> The organization issued an apology for the "mistake" and recommended to Hill to reach out whenever he has questions or concerns about a review. It's unclear why the author of the article decided that the word 'mistake' deserved the scary quote treatment.
"We apologize for the mistake and encourage"
If I understand the timeline correctly here, it seems that gorhill overreacted, and I say that as someone who is usually harshly critical of everything Mozilla has done in the past 5+ years. It's hardly practical for Mozilla to manually review every add-on revision for safety in a timely manner, so they had the choice between automation and delays that would make add-on development a slog; automation though inevitabl…
I think it’s reasonable to expect that one of Firefox’s most popular extension publishers gets a higher tier of review service. Gorhill (and other top extension devs) are providing real value to Firefox, and have demonstrated good behavior for years. This doesn’t mean they should get to publish whatever they want, but if a reviewer is about to reject a high profile plugin, they should get a second set of eyes on it.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because there was a privacy policy it's hard to understand how that could be a mistake. The insinuation is the reviewer was not acting in hood faith.
Which brings us to: It's unclear why the author of the article decided that the reviewer was not acting in good faith.
That should be obvious, honestly. The extension is a threat to the reviewer's paycheck...
Mozilla is an absolute joke of an organization, and it's tragic that they are still the primary alternative to Google having a total monopoly on browsers. I suppose you shouldn't expect much from a company that is just there to maintain a facade to fend off regulators.
I'm scared to say that Safari comes closest but you're just in Apple's walled garden then instead of someone elses'.
Our only hope seems to lie with Ladybird, if that even ends up being good and it seems extensions aren't on the agenda at least for a while.
If I understand the timeline correctly here, it seems that gorhill overreacted, and I say that as someone who is usually harshly critical of everything Mozilla has done in the past 5+ years. It's hardly practical for Mozilla to manually review every add-on revision for safety in a timely manner, so they had the choice between automation and delays that would make add-on development a slog; automation though inevitabl…
So Mozilla goofed, apologised of their own accord and corrected the mistake? And in response this dev is throwing his toys out of the pram? Do I read this right?
I can see how having to jump pointless bureaucratic hoops in a volunteer project can cause throwing out toys.
It's like... I, too, find it burdensome for a review that claims to be "manual" to suddenly flag a file my code has been utilizing for years, and puts the onus on me to refute it's findings. Not only is it trying to prove a negative, it's ridiculous that an unchanged file needs re-review for things like "is it minified?".
As far as I can see, there are errors here and they are ALL on Mozilla's side. Better training, maybe, but probably just stop lying that a manual review has happened when it hasn't. And then, when you have whatever semi-automated review is being done flag a thing, then actually have a human review it. And, since that would be a firehose, implement simple standards to filter out spam and publish those standards - and what effect each infraction will have on the review process, including steps for remedy. Make them able to be completed as automatically as possible for the developers, so that you don't have to manually review, again. If it's a minification issue, require the devs to re-upload non-minified versions, check it automatically, and then allow the publish.
I'm being simplistic and flip, but a reasonable generalization is just that bureaucracy should be imposed on the implementers of the bureaucracy, not the people who are trying to engage with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What pointless hoops? The extension was restored.
After pointless hoops. And the process seems to involve pointless hoops even when the review is not rejected. https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/197
> After re-reviewing your extension, we have determined that the previous decision was incorrect and based on that determination, we have restored your add-on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An outlook like that will really limit who you work with in the future. I don't know anyone, corp or otherwise, that doesn't mess up from time to time. What matters is the acknowledgement of the mistake and taking steps to rectify it. IMO, as much as I highly respect his products, the dev pulled a hissy fit over a mistake.
So, half of what you say matters seems to be missing.
This behavior reminds of Apple. They say it‘s for security (where have I heard that before), yet Chrome doesn’t seem to need such a restriction.
To me it seems like another step in many of Mozilla‘s enshittification.