Discontinuing beta versions

(Jorge) #1

Please read the blog post for details:


If you have any questions or comments, this is the best place to post them!

(Martin Giger) #2

Right when the initial anouncement mail arrived, I asked about ways to conveniently run your own beta channel as developer: Maintaining your own development channel

Clearly, having an unsigned version of the extension is the most logical way to deal with it, however I’m wondering what is keeping a developer from publishing their beta version as a separate listed extension, like some app developers do on Google Play? (which totally doesn’t include Mozilla with Firefox Nightly)

(Jorge) #3

This may not be allowed by the reviewers, since it could lead to user confusion by having multiple, very similar listings. It would also have the same problem the beta versions feature had, which is that if the developer doesn’t want to keep maintaining the beta channel, users will be stranded there and can’t be automatically moved to the release channel.

(Mikhail Khvoinitsky) #4

Is it possible to have an unlisted version with the same ID as the listed one?

(Jorge) #5

Yes, you can submit listed and self-hosted versions for the same add-on. You just need to change the “Where to host” setting when you upload a new version for the existing add-on.

(Pete) #6

@jorgev: this doesn’t seem to be supported by web-ext - if the add-on is on amo, it refuses to sign when I include an update URL. It seems this might be fixed by https://github.com/mozilla/web-ext/pull/1250 ?

Assuming this gets fixed, you mentioned the ability to switch users between beta and release channels, and that it wouldn’t be necessary to publish “release” versions to both channels. This sounds like a big improvement, could you please provide some details on how to accomplish this when the release version is published on amo and the beta is self-hosted?