AMO Deployment on March 22nd

Mike Morgan

10

AMO deployment has been moved to the evening of Thursday, March 22nd. The next Firefox release conflicts with our planned AMO deployment date and it is not optimal to make infra changes during a release.

We have had some excellent feedback reported, and we’ve made good use of our incubation period for the new site. Thank you for your feedback, it has helped tremendously! Here are some bugzilla queries if you’d like to browse through some of the feedback (and fixes):

We’d like the thank our reviewers and localizers for their contributions. They have helped us tremendously by working through the review queue, processing new submissions, and making sure our effort is a global one. So, special thanks to our friends below. You guys are as awesome as you are talented and beautiful!

Reviewers (reviews):

  • Olive (111)
  • Pontus Freyhult (76)
  • Frederic Wenzel (49)
  • Giorgio Maone (23)
  • Wil Clouser (22)
  • Nitallica (20)
  • Ken Saunders (17)
  • Mel Reyes (aka: mrtech) (16)
  • Michael J Morgan (15)
  • Justin Scott (12)
  • CP (11)
  • Archaeopteryx (10)
  • Igor Rashnitsov (9)
  • Sancus (6)
  • Davide Ficano (6)
  • Jon Stritar (5)
  • TwisterMc (4)
  • Anthony Hughes (4)
  • tnarik (4)
  • ASANO Naoyuki (3)
  • Andrew Williamson (2)
  • NeoNexus DeMortis (2)
  • Steve Jones (1)
  • Daniel Miller (1)
  • Georges-Etienne Legendre (1)
  • Felix Ritter (1)

Localizers (locale):

  • Lukas Petrovicky (cs)
  • Jesper Kristensen (da)
  • Frederic Wenzel (de)
  • Wil Clouser (en)
  • Nukeador (es)
  • Ibai Oihanguren (eu)
  • Pascal Chevrel (fr)
  • Francesco Lodolo (it)
  • Kohei Yoshino (ja)
  • Channy Yun (ko)
  • Marek A. Stępień (pl)
  • Alexander L. Slovesnik (ru)
  • Alexandru Szasz (ro)
  • mozilla.sk team (sk)
  • Ahmet Serkan Tirataci (tr)

Feedback ninja:

  • Wladimir Palant

Thanks to all of you for your hard work and contributions. There are probably others who helped out who are not listed, and to those of you we missed, thank you!

Categories: AMO

10 responses

  1. MASA wrote on :

    Um, I found a bug. None of the extensions that are old (atleast mine) don’t show up on the new site. Why?

  2. Wladimir Palant wrote on ::

    MASA, these extensions are in the sandbox now, see http://blog.fligtar.com/2006/11/21/reviewing-the-review-process/
    If the authors of this extensions still care about them they will nominate them for review to make sure they become public. Otherwise they will stay in the sandbox with other experimental extensions where they can only be downloaded by registered users who explicitly stated that they want to see the sandbox.

    I just checked – out of the 54 bugs I reported only 8 are open (two will still be addressed before the launch I guess). Great job, guys! This time Remora is in a much better shape for a release.

  3. Frédéric Wenzel wrote on ::

    54 bugs? Wow, Wladimir, you really deserve that ninja title ;)

  4. eric h. jung wrote on ::

    Are extensions being reviewed and made public before March 19, or is the process on hold?

  5. Huji wrote on :

    I would love to know how the decision which theme/extension goes to sandbox was made. Right now it appears to be completely arbitrary. And very unfair. People worked hard on their extensions and themes, and they deserve better than this.

  6. Leonardo wrote on ::

    I’ve still the same problem.
    From the dev panel I have:
    version 0.2.2 – Sandbox
    version 0.2.1 – Sandbox
    version 0.2 – Public

    If I search my extension, I can find only 0.2 in the sandbox.
    I don’t understand why?

  7. sandy boxwood wrote on :

    Huji,

    The decision tree is shown in the diagram on fligtar’s blog.
    http://blog.fligtar.com/category/mozilla/amo/
    (http://i.fligtar.com/sandbox-review.png)

    However, I’m not sure if that’s consistently followed, where the terms are defined, etc. Long term probably good idea, but lack of clarity will not sit well with developers and both users and developers will suffer. Best to document new specification completely and make readily available before launch.

  8. MASA wrote on :

    It would have been nice to let us know what the sandbox and crap ment.

    I would also like it if we left the visit extension’s homepage link at the bottom

  9. Subrata wrote on :

    IMO, Multiple platform option is not working.

    Since one can read the “tragetPlatform” tags in the install.rdf to get the platform info, should I use “All” options during submission or submit platform specific XPI files.

    I submitted separate files for Windows and Linux for my extension, and extension download link is visible for only Linux platform. I found that it is actually random. Most probably, page dos not match taget browser with all possible platform specific files.

  10. MeJon wrote on :

    Huji,

    They applied the same “logic” to the sandbox as they apply to the recommended list.