Jetpack/Weekly Meeting/2012-5-22

From MozillaWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


  • Builder
  • SDK
    • Anything for 1.8b2 later today?
  • Roundtable
    • SDK versions used on AMO
    • Scratchkit for executing code examples
    • Tags used in AMO Validator

AMO addons statistics

Based on all addons available on public ftp:

We have 819 jetpack addons (vs 8603 traditional xul addons)
Number of jetpack addons based on SDK version:

  • 0.x -- 31
  • 1.0 -- 132
  • 1.1 -- 14
  • 1.2 -- 223
  • 1.3 -- 106
  • 1.4 -- 54
  • 1.5 -- 150
  • 1.6 -- 104
  • 1.7 -- 4
  • 1.8 -- 1

  • It isn't really obvious that jetpack addons are repacked.
  • 31 addons are using an unknown SDK version. Before 1.0b2, we weren't specifying SDK version in xpi.
  • We have 103 addons using pre 1.0b5 version that was using system principal for content scripts.




No update.


We're releasing 1.8b2 today, is there anything that should be cherry-picked?

  • Alex: there are a few small fixes, probably nothing essential.
  • Will: there are a few docs additions, will send the list of commits.
  • Irakli: will check the set of commits and see if anything else should be taken.


Old SDK Versions

Alex has done an analysis of which SDK releases are being used in the Jetpack add-ons on AMO.

There are some old add-ons out there.

  • add-ons predating 1.0 have huge memory leaks
  • add-ons predating 1.0b5 use system principal in content scripts, which is a security problem
  • add-ons predatng 1.6.1 have some other big memory leaks.

Should we attempt a repack of these old add-ons? Mossop: we should consider disabling add-ons that are a security risk. We should look at running a mass repack of old add-ons. The Daves will talk.

scratchkit for executing code examples

Irakli demoed an add-on that turns code samples in the SDK docs into executable examples using scratchpad- awesome! Would be great to integrate this into the SDK - this should happen when cfx.js lands, which is expected in Q2.

AMO validator

Wes: the AMO validator downloads all tags, including beta versions and RCs as well as released versions, do we want this? It would be an easy fix to stop it happening. General agreement that this probably was not desirable behavior.