What the difference between:

★☆☆☆☆ this extension doesn't work at all!!!! waaaah!!!!

and

★☆☆☆☆ As mentioned, this extension is incompatible with my Linux box. Bad
show. Bad show.

Avi

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Mike Pinkerton <[email protected]>wrote:

> One viewpoint I haven't seen mentioned on this thread is from that of
> the extension developer. Suppose they write, from their perspective, a
> perfectly good extension that uses binary components. After being
> around for a few weeks, they notice they have a 2-star rating and a
> lot of angry comments saying "this extension doesn't work at all!!!!
> waaaah!!!!"
>
> That doesn't really seem fair to the extension writer. People are
> complaining because they haven't been informed and we've not put a
> mechanism in place to inform them, and they take it out on the
> extension in terms of a really bad rating.
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 6:29 AM, PhistucK <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I believe the most elegant and quick (seemingly) solution is to provide
> the
> > extension developers a field (in the extension gallery, not in the
> extension
> > itself) that will include the platform and the version.
> > Going farther, you can add a check if the platform and the version (or
> even
> > let the developer enter the search string) exist in the user agent or
> > anywhere else you can think of and show a warning next to the install
> > button.
> > And an automatic quick solution can be to go over the manifest (which you
> > already do to search for NPAPI to add it to the approval queue) and see
> if
> > there is a DLL, SO or whatever Macintosh is using in them. If there is a
> > DLL, add a "Compatible with the Windows platform" and so on, or the
> > opposite, if it does not contain, then you surely know - "Not compatible
> > with the Macintosh or Linux platforms".
> > ☆PhistucK
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 03:54, Aaron Boodman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes, extensions that include NPAPI are a very small minority. Last
> >> time I checked there were something like 5. It is a way out for people
> >> who already have binary code that they would like to reuse, or who
> >> need to talk to the platform.
> >>
> >> I don't see what the big deal is about a few extensions only
> >> supporting a particular platform. As long as it is clear to users
> >> (you're right, we need to do this), I think this is ok.
> >>
> >> - a
> >>
> >> --
> >> Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected]
> >> View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
> >>    http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
> >
> > --
> > Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected]
> > View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
> > http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
>
>
>
> --
> Mike Pinkerton
> Mac Weenie
> [email protected]
>

-- 
Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] 
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: 
    http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev

Reply via email to