4 ms·

I don't find this that interesting since the bug was not "fixed" in the sense most people probably think about fixing a bug -- i.e. someone picks it up, investi

by hnarn 5y ago

I don't find this that interesting since the bug was not "fixed" in the sense most people probably think about fixing a bug -- i.e. someone picks it up, investigates it and writes a fix. It was closed due to housekeeping since, as the latest comment states: > "legacy" extensions are gone While I agree that housekeeping large backlogs is commendable, this bug was if anything fixed by "accident", and is no more a fix in the traditional sense than closing a bug for an EOL operating system because the issue described no longer exists.

dotancohen 5y ago
Not really. The real feature being asked for was to prevent arbitrary extensions from accessing the filesystem. That specific request has been granted, as WebExtensions cannot access the filesystem. The situation that no other "safe" method of accessing the filesystem was not even considered by the bug's author, but it does address the issue.