4 ms·

Honestly, your best bet now if you really want to target the stable branch seems to be to maintain a patchset on top of omni.ja. I see no reason that these type

Honestly, your best bet now if you really want to target the stable branch seems to be to maintain a patchset on top of omni.ja. I see no reason that these type of modifications need to be dressed up like they're an extension.

kevincox 6y ago
Because it is convenient. I don't want build my own Firefox distribution on every machine I use. All I want is to be able to include a script into the browser's chrome process and have an easy way to publish and share. This is basically Firefox extensions used to be. (well also XUL patches, but that could have been done with JS too)
- cycloptic 6y ago
  Then build some tools to make it more convenient by applying the patches post-installation, and publish/share it on github? I just don't see how this is any more hassle then having something that you call an extension but that breaks every update and also needs manual fixing.
  - kevincox 6y ago
    You mean like addons.mozilla.org?
    - cycloptic 6y ago
      No, because the things up there don't break every update or require manual fixing.
      - kevincox 6y ago
        Why? I don't see a message that says it is only for stable addons. I don't care if they mark them as unstable, or hide them in the search, but I think itt should be possible to distribute them. I don't see why we would create a whole new infrastructure when one already exists. We just need to repeal the policies that they put in place and come up with ones that allow this type of "power extension".
        cycloptic 6y ago
        You can distribute them on any other site. Somewhere like github would be happy to host them. Power users already know how to use those sites to sideload extensions. I don't see what benefit is going to be had from distributing an unstable extension that can potentially break every update, break the entire browser, steal passwords, keylog you, etc, alongside all the other stable extensions.

kevincox 6y ago

Because it is convenient. I don't want build my own Firefox distribution on every machine I use. All I want is to be able to include a script into the browser's chrome process and have an easy way to publish and share. This is basically Firefox extensions used to be. (well also XUL patches, but that could have been done with JS too)

cycloptic 6y ago
Then build some tools to make it more convenient by applying the patches post-installation, and publish/share it on github? I just don't see how this is any more hassle then having something that you call an extension but that breaks every update and also needs manual fixing.
- kevincox 6y ago
  You mean like addons.mozilla.org?
  - cycloptic 6y ago
    No, because the things up there don't break every update or require manual fixing.
    - kevincox 6y ago
      Why? I don't see a message that says it is only for stable addons. I don't care if they mark them as unstable, or hide them in the search, but I think itt should be possible to distribute them. I don't see why we would create a whole new infrastructure when one already exists. We just need to repeal the policies that they put in place and come up with ones that allow this type of "power extension".
      - cycloptic 6y ago
        You can distribute them on any other site. Somewhere like github would be happy to host them. Power users already know how to use those sites to sideload extensions. I don't see what benefit is going to be had from distributing an unstable extension that can potentially break every update, break the entire browser, steal passwords, keylog you, etc, alongside all the other stable extensions.