Compatibility is related to SeaMonkey and add-on version
You can see the version numbers of SeaMonkey / Thunderbird / Firefox and of all your installed add-ons on the about:support page (Help → Troubleshooting Information). The app version is near the top (Application Basics :: Version), the extensions' versions are in the second column from left under "Extensions". For an add-on that you are browsing on AMO, the supported application versions are listed at bottom of the AMO page for that add-on, in the "Version Information" foldout. There, "and later" (e.g. "Firefox 24.0 and later, SeaMonkey 2.21 and later") means that the extension does not specify strict maxVersion checking and that it is supported by the Toolkit autocompatibility feature. Rainer: If the above satisfies your requirements, please RESOLVE this bug WORKSFORME (after checking that you see what I see where I'm saying that I see it). If it doesn't, please explain in more detail what exactly you would like to see.
No answer to comment #1 in a month, resolving INCOMPLETE. This bug can be resolved WORKSFORME if the solutions in comment #1 are felt to be adequate, or it may be REOPENED with a comment explaining in detail what would be an adequate solution and what wouldn't.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 3 years ago
Resolution: --- → INCOMPLETE
It's obvious that a compatibility list needs information what add-on version is compatible with what SM version. But indeed, I missed to add the URL. The list currently contains add-on version numbers and information " ... have been tested in SeaMonkey" without telling with what SM version the test has been done. My experience is that again and again new SM versions break compatibility with some ad-ons.
Status: RESOLVED → UNCONFIRMED
Resolution: INCOMPLETE → ---
Ah, that's what this bug is about. I'm tempted to resolve it INVALID = "not a Mozilla bug" but I won't do it just yet. According to the "let us know" link near the top of that page, IIUC this problem ought to have been reported at http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=2834855 instead. The problem with that, as I see it, is that that forum thread is inadequate as a bug-tracking system. I'm clearing the NEEDINFO which should have been cleared at comment #3, on the assumption that the sketchy information in that comment (but including, most important, the URL concerned by the bug) answers my question in comment #1.
It is possible to add tested SM versions to each extension in the list and many of them have that. However, this would need a lot of work to test each new SM version with these extensions so I think we need to leave it like that and only update the list as much as our time permits. Rainer, did you receive my email I sent you in September with access info to the compatibility list? I never received a reply from you so I don't know if the email got lost somewhere.
(In reply to lemon_juice from comment #5) Can you give me access to the list so that I can try to understand the structure?
(In reply to Rainer Bielefeld from comment #6) > (In reply to lemon_juice from comment #5) > Can you give me access to the list so that I can try to understand the > structure? Yes, I sent you the access info on 2015-09-23. Check if you got it, otherwise I'll resend it.
I just found out I made a mistake in my previous statement. Currently, there is no separate field for adding compatible SM versions to each extension - it is possible to add tested extension versions. However, if it's needed I can add such a possibility but don't want to make the list too complicated to maintain - most extensions will continue working in the following SM versions and if there is a special case it can be explained in the compatibility information, like "This extension stopped working in SM 2.xx".
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.