Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by The Commissioner, Dec 4, 2017.
That was me.
The issue is obsolete, we've never received any new complaints on it.
I closed it on GH 17 days ago, and I assume you know it as you're there in the comments.
So why were you bumping the thread knowing that the original issue is closed for more than two weeks already?
Wow the tone of that post. Let me try my best to reciprocate in the same way.
You closing down that thread and not knowing what I was bumping for, shows you didn't read the complete thread.
I needed the link to the "presumed" bug in firefox which was causing that issue.
Now since you sarted speaking of the time since it has been closed, my request was made much prior to you closing the issue.
I waited a whole week for something that should take a couple of minutes.
But as we see even after a whole month nobody answered to that particular question.
BTW @vasily_bagirov made a comment on GH some 33 days ago, and I assume you know it as you're there in the comments. Seems like deliberate ignore.
I was not in a good mood yesterday. You might've had a point, but your manner of getting us doing things sometimes drives me mad. It's useful, though, so sorry for that.
Actually, I did.
It's not minutes for sure. In order to file a bug, we should provide "steps to reproduce", and as you know, it was not possible for that issue at that moment.
Frankly, I thought that it's clear from me closing that issue, that it is obsolete. We cannot file a bug to FF about something that we cannot reproduce, and we don't receive any new complaints about it. Okay, I'll write a more detailed comment next time.
It's rather unfortunate that it was the bumps that got your attention to the thread. I tried the normal way of asking, mentioning the admins who was communicating with me in that thread but got no reply and for weeks could you imagine.
Again IDK you might have read the thread but maybe you misunderstood what I'm asking for. Hence the last two quotes in your above reply are simply based on something which I didn't even ask for.
If only I could get the answer, that would be all.
I can imagine why did it happen. Vasily asked devs, nobody answered because they were busy at the moment, and then everybody forgot about it.
Miscommunication at it's best.
Regarding the original question about the bug report. Since the issue was gone after setting "extensions.webextensions.remote", we considered that it was one of the bugs blocking this: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1190679.
Although, it was almost impossible to pinpoint which one of the blocking bugs was the reason for it because we could not repro it.
Thank you very much.
I see bugzilla still doesn't mark it as fixed but the related part may have been fixed.
Still don't understand why @zebrum was able to reproduce it on a stable FF release which at that time was independent of webextension or such entries.
But I appreciate the time and effort.
It was FF 57 when they stopped accepting legacy add-ons. FF 55 allowed installing WebExtensions, but it was full of bugs.
I get it now.
Thanx for the answers.