@Caleb, @OliverSalzburg, ok, so I created accounts on opera and firefox. Are we ready to upload them or not? And if so, should we include the extension files in the release on github?
@Benjol I'd say we could include the built extensions using GH's release thingy, but I wouldn't want them in the repo itself.
Although I'd also say it's probably not necessary. People that are worried about the long wait for new versions an use the userscript version it any of the browsers with some fiddling.
@Benjol GPL would be my default choice because I like the share-left requirement but either way works for this I think. It's your project and whatever you decide, these of us contributing code just have to be fine with. And I'm good either way.
@OliverSalzburg, I'm not even sure I'm in the right place on Opera (I haven't installed Opera in ... a long time, so I'm a bit out of date). I'm at apps.opera.com
@Caleb, I just tried, seems ok here. I've got two auto links (one from GM), but they both work
woops, except it says that it is version 1.3.2.1 :(
That appears to be the FF best, but chrome is not happy. I suspect that might have to do with however you hackded http* @OliverSalzburg, where do I find that?
@Caleb That would break the special Chrome rule though ;D In Chrome you either need two entries which specify http and https specifically, or you need to use *
@OliverSalzburg Not a bad idea. Lets figure out what the list needs to be for each and get it in this dot release, and then clean up the mess for next cycle.
@OliverSalzburg Too late. It's not on master, but it's pretty far up in the history of devel. Oh well... I don't think it will ever show up in master because that change is already there.
@Benjol @OliverSalzburg Here is what I've got. I tested 4 cases (FF, Chrome, Tampermonkey, Greasemonkey) and half a dozen sites (SO, 2.0, metas, https) each and it seems to work. Opera not tested.
@OliverSalzburg, just tried uploading new crx to opera, says: There is a syntax error in manifest.json. Please correct it and try uploading again. The parser reported: Expecting value: line 17 column 9 (char 390)
@Caleb, maybe I screwed something up in the build?
The only specific reasons to set autocrlf to true are:
avoid git status showing all your files as modified because of the automatic eol convernsion done when cloning a unix-based eol Git repo to a Windows one (see issue 83 for instance)
and your coding tools somehow depends on a native eol styl...
It looks like the Chrome store is no longer requiring money for uploads, but that might be because I had an account from way back. I'm wondering if it wouldn't be best to get you uploading that too. It's one thing to have a bottleneck at the owner of a project, it's another to have it sideways.
@Benjol Ask Derek to withdraw the existing one I guess. I don't thing there is a transfer / upgrade path unless we give him a special EOL version that prompts users to switch.
@Benjol Didn't he pinch yours and crop them? I don't see an issue with that although at some point we could probably collect a full new set for docs and store submissions.
In that case it's also probabaly best he does not update his version. The particular way it is broken is it has the auto-updater running pointing people back at the site home page and userscript version. That bug will actually help get people rolled over if we put an announcement on the app page about the new location.
@OliverSalzburg Your link helper comes up for me if I search for it in another browser but for the life of me I can't find it in Opera itself, which I just installed.
Aaaa, it appears to be smart enough to know it won't work with the version I installed. And how on earth is the latest Arch package for Opera 4+ major versions old?
No it's not either. I have the same version the site prompts me to download (12.16).
It appears they dropped Linux support after 12. Man I've been out of the loop.
