# Review Queue Progress and the v41 Release

**URL:** <https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/review-queue-progress-and-the-v41-release/4018>\
**Category:** addons.mozilla.org\
**Created:** [September 12, 2015, 7:08pm UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/review-queue-progress-and-the-v41-release/4018 "2015-09-12T19:08:54Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![palant](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/user_avatar/discourse.mozilla.org/palant/32/30883_2.png) [@palant](https://discourse.mozilla.org/u/palant)\
**Post date:** [September 30, 2015, 9:18am UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/review-queue-progress-and-the-v41-release/4018/21 "2015-09-30T09:18:06Z")

</div>

> [@oscardr](#):
>
> But a lot of people don’t trust in the extensions with this permissions. It’s more difficult to have installations with this permissions.

Not my experience, pretty much all the top extensions require such permissions.

> [@oscardr](#):
>
> “The majority of Chrome extensions is spying on you” this is a fanboy sentence a great exaggeration

I disagree. So far every Chrome extension I looked into had serious issues. See for example [this blog post](https://palant.de/2014/07/29/which-is-better-adblock-or-adblock-plus). Note that this behavior is totally in line with Chrome Web Store policies.

> [@oscardr](#):
>
> I have a popular extension in the Chrome Store and I’ve received a lot of mails offering me money for inject code with the host permissions (that my extension doesn’t have). (I don’t answer this emails).

Glad to hear that but most Chrome extension developers don’t seem to have such sentiments - and frankly, there isn’t much there to stop them.

> [@oscardr](#):
>
> Firefox would have a permissions rights that the users have to accept and if the extension has some riscky permission then a person has to review the code.

That’s what WebExtensions are about. Personally, I have doubts that this will result in a noteworthy improvement, but we’ll see.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![oscardr](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/user_avatar/discourse.mozilla.org/oscardr/32/21175_2.png) [@oscardr](https://discourse.mozilla.org/u/oscardr)\
**Post date:** [September 30, 2015, 9:30am UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/review-queue-progress-and-the-v41-release/4018/22 "2015-09-30T09:30:59Z")

</div>

> [@palant](#):
>
> Not my experience, pretty much all the top extensions require such permissions.

Yes, because people trust in popular extensions (error!!!), but to little extensions is more difficult to have installations with host permissions (it’s my experience).

> [@palant](#):
>
> See for example [this blog post](https://palant.de/2014/07/29/which-is-better-adblock-or-adblock-plus). Note that this behavior is totally in line with Chrome Web Store policies.

Interesting blog, I’ll read it.

> [@palant](#):
>
> That’s what WebExtensions are about. Personally, I have doubts that this will result in a noteworthy improvement, but we’ll see.

I didn’t see it, it could be good.

Regards.  
Oscar.

[Previous page](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/review-queue-progress-and-the-v41-release/4018.md?page=1)