529811 - Add Firefox 3.0.11 to AMO valid versions list

Status: VERIFIED FIXED

(addons.mozilla.org Graveyard :: Administration, defect)

Description

[Jason Sonnenschein]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_6_2; en-US) AppleWebKit/532.5 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/4.0.251.0 Safari/532.5
Build Identifier: 

In the AMO developer pages, the extension developer can set firefox version compatibility for their extensions.  Firefox version 3.0.11 is not an option there.  I maintain an extension that was affected by a bug in Firefox versions 3.0.5-3.0.10 and would like to set minimum compatibility to 3.0.11

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Go to Addons.mozilla.org website
2. Log in and use developer tools
3. Try to change version compatibility for a maintained extension in "files and versions"
Actual Results:  
3.0.11 is not in the list, though 3.0.9 and below are

Expected Results:  
3.0.11 will be in the list

Comment 1

[Dave Garrett]

Is there a bug number for the issue that was fixed? Also, is there a corresponding 3.5.x version that should be added, or did this bug only affect 3.0.x?

Comment 2

[Jason Sonnenschein]

The issue was https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=406646

The bug only affected 3.0.x

Comment 3

[Dave Garrett]

Seems like a valid request to me. 3.0.9 was also added at the request of an extension developer who wanted it (bug 491169).

Comment 4

[Justin Scott [:fligtar]]

There's a big difference between the circumstances of that bug and this one: when 3.0.9 was added, Firefox 3.0.x was still the current release. Now, no users should be using a version that old with public security vulnerabilities. Will think about this on Monday.

Comment 5

[Dave Garrett]

True, but an extension's version range isn't really related to that. We don't exactly block out-of-date users from installing or updating extensions and no one should be using 3.0 but that can still be set as a minimum. A version of 3.0.15 could be warranted instead, though that's not actually the minimum supported version so that would feel odd to me.

Comment 6

[Jason Sonnenschein]

Although I agree no one "should" be using a version that old, when I look at graphs for my extension, some folks still are using firefox older than 3.0.11

Comment 7

[Jason Sonnenschein]

I'm curious... What are the arguments against adding it?  Does it do some harm somewhere?

Comment 8

[Justin Scott [:fligtar]]

Added 3.0.11.

(In reply to comment #7)
> I'm curious... What are the arguments against adding it?  Does it do some harm
> somewhere?

It's just another option to confuse people. Surprisingly, add-on developers often don't understand how the compatibility ranges work.

Comment 9

[Stephen Donner [:stephend] Not actively reading bugmail]

Verified FIXED on https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/pages/appversions.

Comment 10

[Jason Sonnenschein]

Thanks guys