3 ms·

This nicely illustrates the difference between merely being "open source" (Chromium) and being developed in the open (Firefox). At the very least a decision of

This nicely illustrates the difference between merely being "open source" (Chromium) and being developed in the open (Firefox). At the very least a decision of this magnitude would have been discussed in the community BEFORE being merged in any sane openly governed project.

justinschuh 14y ago
I don't know why you're claiming this wasn't developed openly. The bugs are all public (the first was filed ~2 years ago); the code is checked into the public tree and has been enabled on canary for almost a month. It wasn't a heavy-handed or rash change, and the impact on both users and developers is minimal.
- apendleton 14y ago
  For those of us that have already-deployed off-store extensions in the wild, what options do we have for migrating our users to the new, Webstore-powered versions? Or will their extensions just silently stop updating (or, worse, working altogether)? If it's the latter, your claim that this change will have minimal impact on developers and users is patently false, since you'll be breaking currently-released and -deployed applications that used to work and met the previously-documented requirements, with no warning whatsoever. Further, the suggestion that this is justified because it was committed to a public repository is absurd: are all developers of Chrome applications supposed to follow every single commit to Chromium's repo to ensure that our extensions won't break? What happened to Chrome's supposed immunity to breaking extensions with new releases, which you claimed made your extension model superior to Firefox's?
  - justinschuh 14y ago
    This change adds a few extra steps for an off-store install, unless the user or administrator configures things otherwise. That's it; updates and existing installations aren't affected at all. The details are very clear if you read the discussion or a few of the comments in the bug.
- petegrif 14y ago
  I'm sorry. This is NOT a meaningful channel. And this is NOT appropriate communication. But to be honest, what I find most scary about this is the fact that you think it is.
  - CamperBob2 14y ago
    So you're saying you didn't look under the locked filing cabinet in the basement of the condemned warehouse, the one that they were storing in the closet that used to be the men's room until it flooded. I see. How is that Google's fault?

justinschuh 14y ago

I don't know why you're claiming this wasn't developed openly. The bugs are all public (the first was filed ~2 years ago); the code is checked into the public tree and has been enabled on canary for almost a month. It wasn't a heavy-handed or rash change, and the impact on both users and developers is minimal.

apendleton 14y ago
For those of us that have already-deployed off-store extensions in the wild, what options do we have for migrating our users to the new, Webstore-powered versions? Or will their extensions just silently stop updating (or, worse, working altogether)? If it's the latter, your claim that this change will have minimal impact on developers and users is patently false, since you'll be breaking currently-released and -deployed applications that used to work and met the previously-documented requirements, with no warning whatsoever. Further, the suggestion that this is justified because it was committed to a public repository is absurd: are all developers of Chrome applications supposed to follow every single commit to Chromium's repo to ensure that our extensions won't break? What happened to Chrome's supposed immunity to breaking extensions with new releases, which you claimed made your extension model superior to Firefox's?
- justinschuh 14y ago
  This change adds a few extra steps for an off-store install, unless the user or administrator configures things otherwise. That's it; updates and existing installations aren't affected at all. The details are very clear if you read the discussion or a few of the comments in the bug.
petegrif 14y ago
I'm sorry. This is NOT a meaningful channel. And this is NOT appropriate communication. But to be honest, what I find most scary about this is the fact that you think it is.
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  So you're saying you didn't look under the locked filing cabinet in the basement of the condemned warehouse, the one that they were storing in the closet that used to be the men's room until it flooded. I see. How is that Google's fault?