A few thoughts. First, Fx extensions are required to expose the versions that they work for. In many cases after a release extensions will work pretty well and

A few thoughts. First, Fx extensions are required to expose the versions that they work for. In many cases after a release extensions will work pretty well and just need to have the "working versions" updated. Apart from that, I think the new development process (http://mozilla.github.com/process-releases/draft/development_overview/ http://mozilla.github.com/process-releases/draft/development...) makes it less likely that new versions will break extensions. The past Fx development model focused on cramming a ton of features in to the browser, then bumping the version number. This could be a pain because there were huge changes, extensions broke and were slow to be updated, users were nagged... The new approach is to ship on a schedule: if a change is good, it goes into the RC; if it isn't ready, it stays out. But this likely means that every "new version" won't contain nearly as many massive and possibly breaking changes. I think this should let extension developers keep up with development better.