For what it's worth, this thread was not meant to point fingers, but specifically to get an answer from said team. I see concern about Extension Signing, and I see points made by add-on developers and which appear valid to me and which I am unable to answer.
That doesn't mean that we have done something wrong, but it is sufficient to get my spider(monkey)-sense tingling. We have had cases in the past where teams have « been busting their asses over [some feature] for months » and we realized too late that the feature was not aligned with what we needed. I have no idea whether this is the case here, hence the need to communicate. As a side-note, yeah, it would be great if signing add-ons was as simple as using Let's Encrypt, without having to pile even more work upon an understaffed team of reviewers. Best regards, David On 26/11/15 18:13, Mike Hoye wrote: > On 2015-11-26 11:07 AM, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: >> >> I haven't followed the overall discussion closely, but > This is not OK. > > Does anyone here actually think that the team that's been busting their > asses over this for months _doesn't_ have better information and more > insight into this problem than what you've come up with after thinking > about it for five minutes? [...] _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
