Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Why hasn't Mozilla put out a clear statement that Fennec is EOL'd and that the replacement definitely won't be pushed out until it's ready (including support for extensions)? It would go a long way with users if Mozilla could just clearly state that Firefox for Android will be skipping versions 69 through at least ~73 due to Fenix not being ready for public consumption. Stating that extension support is not part of the MVP and failing to set a clear deadline for getting that feature back is not reassuring.


We did make a statement mostly to that effect on the dev-platform list back in April: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.platform...

It got picked up by a handful of news outlets, but there's just a lot of news these days, so it's easy to miss things.


Honestly, it seems a bit weird to say that, on the one hand, you've made a statement to mostly that effect but then in another comment say that Mozilla can't commit to anything.

Plainly speaking, is it a possibility that Firefox on Android will lose extension support for some time in the future?


Support for add-ons will not be removed from Firefox for Android ("Fennec"). However, Fennec will eventually get discontinued (but not in the next year), because its code is honestly a mess.

So the question is whether or not Fennec's replacement will support add-ons when Fennec finally hits End of Life. And I know this sucks as an answer, but we're not yet ready to make public commitments on that front. That's not because we have bad news hidden up our sleeves, it's just... we're still working and designing and figuring this stuff out.

If you want to know more about the architectural mess we got ourselves into, and how we're extricating ourselves from it, I highly recommend reading through this internal presentation on the topic: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1MzU9q2wCwojC0kb1eVfm...


So to summarise, firefox for android will stop existing and you will not commit to saying that whatever you replace it with will have addons.

You imply that this doesn't mean that it will not, but also not that it will. What you will say about it is that addons are hard.

Taken together, those statements don't exactly foreshadow good news.


Thank you for the additional info. What this tells me is that Mozilla does not see add-ons for Firefox as essential as I do, which is indeed troubling for me.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: