Add-ons Review Update – Week of 2010/04/27


  • These bi-weekly posts explain the current state of add-on reviews and other information relevant to add-on developers. There’s a lengthy overview of the Add-on Review Process posted in this blog that should be read as a general guide about the review process.
  • Most nominations are being reviewed within 2 weeks. Our goal is have them all under 1 week by July.
  • Almost every update is being reviewed within 4 days. We want to reduce this more in the future, but nominations are the current priority.

The Review Queues

  • The stats are taken from the latest queue report from last Friday.
  • 63 new nominations that week. 107 nominations in the queue awaiting review.
  • 40 updates that week. 41 updates in the queue awaiting review.
  • 893 reviews performed by AMO Editors this month. There were 22 editors performing reviews last week.

See the Add-on Review Process and You for information on how to check your  add-on status.

Notes for Developers

  • Useful Information for Add-on Authors. How to improve review times for your add-on, information about the review process, etc.
  • Bugzilla information for editors. How to file AMO bugs, how to flag bugs relevant for editors, and information on current and future AMO version releases. Let me know if you want to help fixing AMO bugs.
  • If you have an add-on that uses the XPCOM Plugin API and have been experiencing problems migrating to 3.6, please read these discussions at the AMO Forum.
  • We’re currently discussing a proposal that will substantially change the way we see and deal with unreviewed add-ons, and will have a significant impact on all add-on developers. All add-on developers should read the ongoing discussion at the AMO Forum. The proposal has seen many changes based on feedback from the community, and this is the time to voice your concerns and ideas.
  • Fennec (Firefox Mobile) is quickly approaching its 1.1 release, and add-on authors should make sure their Fennec add-ons are up to date in compatibility. 1.1.* is now a valid max version string for Fennec add-ons. Remember you can change your max version on AMO without having to upload a new file!

Jorge Villalobos

Add-ons Developer Relations Lead, Mozilla

7 responses

  1. Mook wrote on :

    The AMO discussion does not seemed to have reached anything concrete yet for a second pass? I had thought the change in wording was a sign that there was actually something I could actually look at, instead of just… more discussion that hasn’t gone anywhere yet. That is, there still hasn’t been much agreement between the developers and the admins – there’s two new, different proposals but no acceptance.

    XPCOM plugins: the correct place to announce things would have been dev-tech-plugins, not dev-tech-platform (since that has mostly nothing to do with NPAPI plugin development). Also, plugin-futures has no NNTP gateway (and d.t.plugins is an example that shows there wouldn’t be too much spam).

  2. Jorge wrote on :

    Well, the last 2 posts are fairly recent and are our response to concerns voiced by authors. We hope to receive some response from authors about this new direction to continue the conversation.

  3. markus wrote on :

    Is there a place where you announce the adjustments to the recommended addon lists each month? This blog did mention it at one point (for one month) but I think it would be ideal if you could announce (each month) which addons have been put on these lists.

  4. Jorge wrote on :

    @markus: we don’t publish that yet, but I know there are plans for this. This is more in the hands of other people in the marketing and product side, though. It’s definitely a good idea.

  5. markus wrote on :

    Why wouldnt you publish that data? Isn’t it public information when any users visits the recommended list on AMO? It’s just a hassle to go into each category and see which addons are there. It would be much better is there was a published list.

  6. Jeff Cotrupe wrote on :

    I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this group and am seeking a developer with whom to collaborate on an Add-On.

  7. Jorge wrote on :

    @Jeff: This is a good place to start: