Bookmark Favicon Changer and all of my add-ons were banned.

[Noitidart]

I don't know litho man. I've been around since 2011 whenever I had something rejected and I didn't understand the rejection reason to well I always emailed back and got a fast response.

Only time I find that long queue times for approval gets me in a mess is when i have a second update for it and first one still hasn't gone through. But after the first update its already listed so i dont worry too much. I felt the longer the review the safer.

[patrickjdempsey]

I don't know litho man. I've been around since 2011 whenever I had something rejected and I didn't understand the rejection reason to well I always emailed back and got a fast response.

It's against AMO policy for reviewers to give advice. Some of them will if you are friendly with them, but most of the time nothing. It's not a particularly helpful system especially when you are being flagged for something esoteric like "namespacing" that could actually mean a dozen totally different things. It's especially frustrating when NONE of the example extensions given on the MDN will pass a review, when code copied directly from Firefox won't pass a review, when web standard techniques for CSS and JS won't pass a review, or when outdated technologies are well documented but the new "required" methods are not at all. Firefox developers can slop together whatever broken code they come up with and it'll ship in the product, but extensions developers are held to a different standard. I do think there should be a high standard, but with that high standard needs to come the resources to make it work.

[Noitidart]

I don't know litho man. I've been around since 2011 whenever I had something rejected and I didn't understand the rejection reason to well I always emailed back and got a fast response.

It's against AMO policy for reviewers to give advice. Some of them will if you are friendly with them, but most of the time nothing. It's not a particularly helpful system especially when you are being flagged for something esoteric like "namespacing" that could actually mean a dozen totally different things. It's especially frustrating when NONE of the example extensions given on the MDN will pass a review, when code copied directly from Firefox won't pass a review, when web standard techniques for CSS and JS won't pass a review, or when outdated technologies are well documented but the new "required" methods are not at all. Firefox developers can slop together whatever broken code they come up with and it'll ship in the product, but extensions developers are held to a different standard. I do think there should be a high standard, but with that high standard needs to come the resources to make it work.

I'm doing my part! I'm updating MDN all the time

I don't know man if thats their policy man i really got awesome feedback from the biggest ass hole I know. This guy named John-Galt man that guy is an absolute jerk he won't help you if you mispell a word on IRC (I mean this guy is a serious ask, if you ask for help and he deson't like you he'll say "yeah i know how" and then won't help its ridiculous) but when he rejected my addon i reached back and he explained why.

[sonthakit]

I'm doing my part! I'm updating MDN all the time

Thank you to update. But it is very ineffective.

New version of Bookmark favicon changer 2.24 had been emergency released due to bug in Firefox 36
The reason of bug is "AMO remove the function PlacesUtils.nodeIsReadOnly()" [see the bug 1168671]
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1068671

Without warning, without telling developer, without any documentation in "Firefox 36 for developer page", without any error showing when upload BFC to "compatibility test" --> This function silently disappear in Firefox 36 and make BFC bug again. Even the document in MDN still shows that this function is still be there. No documentation say that this function had been removed. It is a burden, headache and angry for developer to search a needle in an ocean for what is problem, what's going on.

see...
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox/Releases/36
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Tech/Places/Places_utilities_for_JavaScript#nodeIs.28.29

Removing this function do not make firefox faster or more stable. Removing this function make only one thing, BUG. I fight the AMO for this idea for a long time... Developer need backward compatibility as much as possible.!!! Removing or changing existing function should not happen except it is absolutely critical necessary. If AMO need new thing, just make new function, don't modified the old one.

I do not use Firefox anymore due to it is very unstable and make me unhappy every time when Firefox update. Now I use SRWare Iron as my default browser. I am very busy, I don't have a time to test my add-on every 6 weeks. Testing add-on need times, not an easy task. I only rely on "Firefox for developer page" and sometime compatibility test. But most of the time it is very ineffective. At this difficult time, I am only rely on my user to notify me the problem.

Sorry, my english is not good.
Sonthakit

[Noitidart]

You should use palemooon instead man. Don't support googles ways of saying something is free and making money off of you. Sure they provide you a product. But if anyone your brother told you something and does some stuff to take advantage of you, no one would like that.

[sonthakit]

You should use palemooon instead man. Don't support googles ways of saying something is free and making money off of you.

Sadly that I have no money to buy a new computer. I still use WinXP in old computer which Palemoon don't support.
I live in Thailand which is now under military janta. Economy is not good, I need to save every money to support life.

And I say that I use SRWare Iron, not Google Chrome.

But if your question is why I host my add-on on Google site.
It is because Firefox require HTTPS for autoupdate and need storage space to host XPI file for new version to download.
Nearly all free website don't allow any executable files to upload such as exe,dll,xpi... ect because these files types can be virus.
Only Two sites that allow HTTPS and XPI file that I can find are dropbox and google site. No other free site allow XPI and HTTPS.

When version 2.13 came out. I had a lot of user, increasing everyday. And one day, I was banned from dropbox because bandwidth overload. Every user need to check for autoupdate everyday and dropbox could not tolerate it. They needed me to pay!!
So I moved from dropbox to Google site and new version 2.14 come out.

If you know any stable free website that I can use HTTPS, can host XPI file and unlimited bandwidth, tell me.

Sonthakit

[Noitidart]

Oh awesome! I'm a huge WinXP fan myself!! I code support for WinXP in all my addons
Anyways I wish you would be back as a firefox dev. google chrome devs are not as respected as ff ones. chrome devs are dime a dozen and quality of the addons is less in that case.

[Philip Chee]

You should use palemooon instead man. Don't support googles ways of saying something is free and making money off of you.

Sadly that I have no money to buy a new computer. I still use WinXP in old computer which Palemoon don't support.
I live in Thailand which is now under military janta. Economy is not good, I need to save every money to support life.

Pale Moon for Windows XP:
http://binaryoutcast.com/projects/pm4xp/

What operating systems and architectures does PM4XP run on?

• Windows XP Home, Professional, Tablet PC, Media Center x86 Editions (Obviously, only the x86 version will run on x86 operating systems)
  
• Windows XP Professional x64 Edition
  
• Windows Server 2003 (including R2) x86 and x64
  
• ReactOS 3.x

Phil

[sonthakit]

Thank. But this rebuid version of Palemoon has only 4 months left.

If the Pale Moon main-line has dropped support for Windows XP, how long will you provide PM4XP?

Providing these contributed builds are contingent on a few factors:

Does the codebase actually build successfully?
Do the resulting binaries perform in an acceptable manor?
Can any build errors be corrected with a reasonable amount of effort?

As long as it is deemed advantageous to do so we will continue this effort until July 14th, 2015 (Windows Server 2003's End of Life date and the final end to ALL retail NT 5.x era Operating Systems) unless one of the above factors prevents us from doing so. In that event (and upon Server 2003's EOL) we will build to the nearest minor version number. For example, the last successful build was 25.3.1 but 25.4.0 will not build or does not run in an acceptable manor and 25.3.2 comes out you will get that update but not 25.4.0 and above.

[Noitidart]

Thank. But this rebuid version of Palemoon has only 4 months left.

If the Pale Moon main-line has dropped support for Windows XP, how long will you provide PM4XP?

Providing these contributed builds are contingent on a few factors:

Does the codebase actually build successfully?
Do the resulting binaries perform in an acceptable manor?
Can any build errors be corrected with a reasonable amount of effort?

As long as it is deemed advantageous to do so we will continue this effort until July 14th, 2015 (Windows Server 2003's End of Life date and the final end to ALL retail NT 5.x era Operating Systems) unless one of the above factors prevents us from doing so. In that event (and upon Server 2003's EOL) we will build to the nearest minor version number. For example, the last successful build was 25.3.1 but 25.4.0 will not build or does not run in an acceptable manor and 25.3.2 comes out you will get that update but not 25.4.0 and above.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/18/82410 ... re-pirates

win10 free for all

see how much love you're getting!

[adamhotep]

The reason of bug is "AMO remove the function PlacesUtils.nodeIsReadOnly()" [see the bug 1168671]

Without warning, without telling developer, without any documentation in "Firefox 36 for developer page", without any error showing when upload BFC to "compatibility test" --> This function silently disappear in Firefox 36 and make BFC bug again. Even the document in MDN still shows that this function is still be there. No documentation say that this function had been removed. It is a burden, headache and angry for developer to search a needle in an ocean for what is problem, what's going on.

There is a workaround requested and offered at bug 1068671 comments 35-37. (These are older than the mozillaZine comment I just quoted.) If those are insufficient, please comment on that bug. I've linked it here.