313460 - update of extension rejected

Status: RESOLVED INVALID

(addons.mozilla.org Graveyard :: Developer Pages, defect)

Description

[Julian Reschke]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.8b5) Gecko/20051006 Firefox/1.4.1
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.8b5) Gecko/20051006 Firefox/1.4.1

Hi, an update of my extension was recently rejected. The mail I got was:

--
Open As Webfolder 0.13 - Approval Denied
Your item, Open As Webfolder 0.13, has been reviewed by a Mozilla Update editor who took the following action:
Approval Denied

Your item was tested by OSU LUG Reviewfest using FX 1.0.7 on Windows.
Editor's Comments:
 doesn\'t work, crashed FX once
--

The issue here is that it doesn't give any useful details, nor the possibility to contact the author.

The only difference to the approved version 0.11 is that the version info for Firefox 1.5 beta was updated. So if this version doesn't work, nor does the approved version.

I would really be grateful to get enough information to actually find out what was wrong.

Best regards, Julian

Reproducible: Didn't try

Steps to Reproduce:

Comment 1

[alanjstr]

I'm not sure who is representing the LUG Reviewfest.  Will have to defer to morgamic on that.

Comment 2

[Chris Blore]

Julian, has this now been delt with? 

There is perhaps the wider issue though that some reviewers do not leave more detailed comments when rejecting an extension and this is something that should be encouraged.

Comment 3

[Julian Reschke]

Well, I recently submitted a newer version, and that was accepted.

As I have no idea why the previous one was rejected, this is all I can say. So this ticket can probably be closed.

Best regards, Julian

Comment 4

[Chris Blore]

(In reply to comment #3)
> Well, I recently submitted a newer version, and that was accepted.
> 
> As I have no idea why the previous one was rejected, this is all I can say. So
> this ticket can probably be closed.
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> 

OK. There does need to be some further emphasis on the importance of supplying detailed comments by reviewers to extension developers. That would however be for a separate bug.

->INVALID